In the previous two posts (first, second) we have looked at the climate alarmist’s “steel greenhouse” which they mathematically solve in such a way as to lead to what they think is an alarming behaviour about temperature, which they call a radiative greenhouse effect. Well, they should call it a “radiative greenhouse effect”, but they actually only ever call it a “greenhouse effect” thus sowing confusion over how a real greenhouse functions (physical stoppage of convection) vs. how their solution functions (via radiation which can’t be stopped) which is not like an actual greenhouse. The steel greenhouse is a perfect model for demonstrating the non-existence, the thermodynamic impossibility, of the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm.
In the first post we demonstrated the correct solution which utilizes the complete set of laws of thermodynamics, and this solution quite clearly mathematically proved the non-existence of the alarmist radiative greenhouse effect. In the second post we examined the alternative climate alarmist solution which we identified only partially uses the law of conservation of energy in such a way that it then ignores the full statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics which is the actual law about conservation of energy.
The alarmist solution invents an alternative accounting of energy flows which treats all energy to behave like heat and thus to be able to raise any object’s temperature no matter the source of the energy. This is contradictory to the actual statement of the First Law which specifically states that an object can only raise in temperature if it receives heat, where heat is then defined only as the balance difference of energy intensity between two objects, that is, the energy which spontaneously flows from hot to cold, thus disallowing the energy from a cooler body to raise the temperature of a warmer body. The alarmists go to create this solution because they dispense with the thermodynamic concepts and definitions of heat and specifically of thermodynamic equilibrium, and thus their solution is thermodynamically incomplete and hence does not connect to reality. Logically, they are thus required to come up with a solution which is impossible, and this we can now immediately mathematically prove.
From the last post in equation 4, the mathematical solution for the temperature of the shell showed that it would be
1) Tsh4 = PspO/4πRsh2σ
So, if the shell had the radius of the sphere, then the solution shows that the shell would have the same temperature of the sphere because the temperature of the sphere by itself is simply
2) Tsp4 = PspO/4πRsp2σ
That is all well and good, and is what you would expect for the shell. This is the same result in both the alarmist’s solution and the correct solution from the first post. That is, the temperature of the sphere is given simply by its internal power generation spread over emission from its surface, and if the shell is identical with the surface of the sphere then the shell must equate to the surface of the sphere and hence have the temperature of the sphere. However, the ontological error of their non-utilization of the complete and proper set of thermodynamic laws is exposed when we look at their solution for the temperature of the sphere (equation 6 from the last post):
3) Tsp4 = (Psp0/4πσ)((Rsp2 + Rsh2)/Rsp2Rsh2)
Let us make the shell radius the same as the sphere radius, i.e., Rsh2 = Rsp2, and then equation 3 becomes
4) Tsp4 = 2PspO/4πRsp2σ
Equation 4 should have been identical to equation 2 since what we’re doing in equations 3 and 4 is the exact same thing as in equations 1 and 2, i.e., making the shell radius the same as the sphere radius. Instead what we have is a contradiction, a paradox, i.e. an impossibility, thus indicating that something has gone fatally wrong – there is a factor of two in equation 4 which should not be there.
At the stage of arriving at the equation 1 above in the previous two posts, everything is OK. The flaw in the alarmist’s radiative greenhouse effect physics comes in after that, when they develop a solution with a mathematics which does not utilize the definition and concepts and maths of heat flow and thermodynamic equilibrium. What else can happen but deriving an equation which contradicts and hence disproves itself when the premises going into the solution aren’t based in the mathematical laws of physics and the logic of reality, i.e. the logic of that which can exist?
Remember, this is their solution, their mathematics which they create by ignoring the definition and equations for heat flow and thermodynamic equilibrium, their result, and their own paradox which exposes their radiative greenhouse effect scheme as false.
It is finished. And they are finished.
Climate of Sophistry 
Until someone manages to get one of these crooks, eg Gore Mann, Hanson, Schmidt, etc. into a court, under oath, and have them fail to contradict this, ie agree, then they will ignore this and continue, as the political tide is very strong.
Thanks Joe, BRILLIANT reasoning which confirms what Hertzberg, Siddons and I wrote earlier this year in two peer reviewed papers: http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_CO2-EaE.pdf and http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf
In the face of such basic mathematical treatment, I predict that the typical response of “greenhouse theory” proponents will be to say that this is all math trickery — theoretical bullshit, and then they will divert the focus into some other direction that does NOT involve math, such as a particularly strong hurricane, or a particularly sparse arctic sea-ice season, as they try to prove a generality using a very isolated specific. Business (i.e., self delusion) as usual for many, I’m afraid. But maybe a few more will wake up, … which would be a little progress, I guess.
Now about “peer review”. Some people give this validity, only when THEIR peers are the ones reviewing.
Ever notice that the initials of “peer review” and “public relations” are the same? — PR
I think, in some cases, we should call it “PC review” — “PC” for “Politically Correct”
I would really like to see Eli work out the answer himself.
And I’d really like to find Willis and give him an earful for just blatantly violating conservation of energy and calling it a rounding error…
At least the claimed error involves the idea of “round” and not “flat”, or maybe not — it IS a sort of “flattening error” too, I guess. The error, in its rounding, thus, flattens. (^_^)
Just for clarity, our papers mentioned above demolish the idea that there is an atmospheric “greenhouse effect” and demolish the idea that any warming at all is possible off atmospheric carbon dioxide. As per Joe’s extensive work, any and all claims by catastrophic global warming/climate change “scientists” are 180 degrees off reality.
Unfortunately, demolition is easily countered by delusion, until some practical application forces the deluded to hit a brick wall of consequences. For example, many people would have to face, head on, the failure of the Paris Agreement fully executed, before they started to question its underlying premises. And even then, there would be stages of further denial trying to reconcile why reality was not changing, … possibly to the point of collapsing key segments of civilization, causing civilization to fall, killing off a large proportion of people, … to leave a clean slate for others to rebuild on a different foundation of beliefs.
Otherwise, the process of unfolding the truth will continue very slowly at a snail’s pace, driven by competing forces of finances and politics, in a struggle between opposing sides, where whoever has the most money and influence wins big, while the less financially and politically powered souls endure the idiocy of powerful wealthy deluded people.
Physics, thus, succumbs to politics and fiscal forces, where the truth does not set you free.
Yeah, that’s a bleak outlook, but that’s where I am on this today. A strong faction of truth seekers, then, might be the best hope, rather than thinking that a paradigm change is possible in our lifetimes or even in multiple lifetimes. Truth seeking has to become the counter-religion to oppose the religion of human-caused-CO2 climate change, and the resultant opposition becomes the way of life.
Changing a religious mind set, in other words, is near impossible. The best you can do is stick to your own guns and be prepared to justify your beliefs.
A comment I get from the alarmists is CO2 absorbs IR, then re-emits it back to the surface. Those IR photons hitting the surface would raise the surface’s temperature, even though that surface has a higher temp than the CO2. I try to explain it is like pissing into fast flowing river, but they still think CO2 is imparting energy to the surface. What would your response be to this?
That’s what this blog and our effort has been all about. What you describe is the fundamental, sole foundation for all of alarmism, and it is called the “radiative greenhouse effect” or RGHE. Your own rebuttal is correct, and is what it amounts to. Nevertheless, there has been an ongoing battle of the sophists on the alarmist side and real science on our side, with each side attempting to find the argument strategy that finally destroys the other side. The alarmists use sophistry and redefinition of terms, etc., while we use logic and mathematics and most especially the laws of thermodynamics. Their strategy rests on the attempt to redefine heat in such a way that the 2nd law no longer applies to it, and they do this by claiming that ANY emission at all is heat, including that from the cold atmosphere, and therefore if the atmosphere emits energy it must heat the surface since all energy will heat. When that argument fails, then they switch to saying that the radiation from the atmosphere “slows down” emission from the surface, thus requiring the surface to get warmer.
An important thing to distinguish is between light and matter – matter does indeed build up, but light only has an effect dependent upon its frequency and so as in the photoelectric effect one can have much much more “red” light, but it has no effect on the metal until “blue” light comes in. Radiant heat flow and heat flow in general is much like this. Lower frequency energy from a cold source cannot increase the frequencies of a warmer object, etc. As someone said in another comment:
“Would the concept of vibration help the discussion? Are not the molecules of warm and cool vibrating, one faster then the other. The radiation from the slower vibrating cool object is not going to make the vibration of the faster warmer object molecules vibrate faster.”
You can also read though the previous two posts and this one to see how the math works out, and how their own math refutes them by contradicting itself.
Alas, the alarmists don’t care about logic or reason or math. They are sophists and purposefully so. They have an agenda, and it is an agenda of power only, not anything else; having people believe their lies only gives them their sense of power, and so that’s why they keep lying. It is a con, and the number 1 rule of the con is to never give up the con! You think at this point they will admit they were wrong? They never intended to be right so why would they care about being wrong? Their intention is power, no matter the destruction.
The maths of the steel greenhouse debunks them. A much simpler and shorter argument and demonstration of their maths refuting themselves could be distilled from this and the previous two posts.
I will be publishing it all soon in review or in a book, etc.
A fast-flowing river is unleashed in front of your face. You piss in it. Pissing IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION of the river’s flow gives the river more energy.
Those are some mighty strong pubococcygeus muscles that can do this.
… an even bigger set of balls to assert that this is truth.
I like the following thought experiment.
Take two steel bars, one 50 degrees and the other 100 degrees, place them one on top of each other in a vacuum chamber. As you know, the cooler one will warm and the hotter one will cool till they each reach the same temperature. (Conduction but no convection)
Now take these bars (back to 50 & 100) and place them an inch apart in the same vacuum chamber. (No conduction or convection) The steel bars will repeat the above outcome but much more slowly this time. (Radiation)
Now I ask you, is there any chance the 100 degree bar would increase in temperature?
I use the following on the alarmists. A heated pool, 30C, in a room with ambient air CO2. Then up the CO2 to 100% of the air, will the pool’s temp go above 30C? Nope.
You should do a piece on this ridiculous graphic. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOTf9PDV4AAnUD4.jpg
Yes those diagrams are called “flat Earth physics” because that’s literally what they are. I have addressed them numerous times.
One place I discussed it was here: https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/06/27/slaying-barak-obama/
Also discussed it in my video presentation and in this unpublished (soon to be published) paper.
The ONLY^3 reason RGHE theory even exists is to explain how the average surface (1.5 m above ground) temperature of 288 K/15 C (K-T balance 289 K/16 C) minus 255 K/-18C , the average surface (now ground) temperature w/o an atmosphere (Which is just completely BOGUS!) equals 33 C warmer w/ than w/o atmosphere.
That Δ33 C notion is absolute rubbish and when it flies into the nearest dumpster it hauls RGHE “theory” in right behind it.
The sooner that is realized and accepted the sooner all of us will have to find something better to do with our time and the taxpayers’ money. Maybe that’s what keeps RGHE staggering down the road.
The genesis of RGHE theory is the incorrect notion that the atmosphere warms the surface (and that is NOT the ground). Explaining the mechanism behind this erroneous notion demands some truly contorted physics, thermo and heat transfer, i.e. energy out of nowhere, cold to hot w/o work, perpetual motion.
Is space cold or hot? There are no molecules in space so our common definitions of hot/cold/heat/energy don’t apply.
The temperatures of objects in space, e.g. the Earth, Moon, space station, Mars, Venus, etc. are determined by the radiation flowing past them. In the case of the Earth, the solar irradiance of 1,368 W/m^2 has a Stefan Boltzmann black body equilibrium temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. That’s hot. Sort of.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/
But an object’s albedo reflects away some of that energy and reduces that temperature.
The Earth’s albedo reflects away about 30% of the Sun’s 1,368 W/m^2 energy leaving 70% or 958 W/m^2 to “warm” the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S-B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394-361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.
Bring science, I did. (5,700 views and zero rebuttals.)
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
Thx, I have seen those, but the new paper.
Another argument they use is to say that CO2 is like a coat, which makes you warmer. But they got that wrong too, it doesn’t make you warmer, a coat just reduces the rate of heat loss. The coat KEEPS you warm, it doesn’t MAKE you warm.
It’s a glass half full/half empty argument. I lay an explanation here:
Richard,
When they tell you co2 is like a blanket and a blanket keeps you warm, just ask them how warm does it make you? 100.6°F, 105.6°F, or 110.6°F. Same question for multiple blankets.
That should shut them up. Sophistry is hard to argue rationally, attitude helps.
Thanks guys, this is great what you are all doing for science. I’m hoping this will eventually pay off and AGW will go down in history as the largest fraud ever. But a lot of people making a lot of money stand in the way of that happening soon. Keep up the great work!
”Another argument they use is to say that CO2 is like a coat, which makes you warmer. But they got that wrong too, it doesn’t make you warmer, a coat just reduces the rate of heat loss. The coat KEEPS you warm, it doesn’t MAKE you warm.”
I asked my 12 yr old niece whilst baby sitting last weekend this question. just out of the blue.
”Does a blanket make you warm or keep you warm Ellie”
”Keeps you warm” she replied……….without hesitation.
Joseph,
The year of the date on your paper is 1017, which you might have already noticed by the time this post goes up.
And you know how a sophist deals with innocent typos – by assassinating a person’s character for typing “1” instead of “2”, while boasting about their own character for saying that the thickness of Earth’s atmosphere is a “rounding error”, when doing calculations involving spherical radii.
J. Richard W., and JP,
That Trenberth diagram is fine, as far as it goes. To be fully applicable to the modern era, however, it needs a slight addition, in order to put it into the proper context. I have made this much needed addition, and I invite all who use the original diagram to now use this updated version:
Seriously though,
That diagram is labelled as Global Energy Flows Wm^2.
But even the <Wm^2 part is wrong, isn’t it, IF we are talking about ENERGY … FLOW.
Isn’t FLOW a measure per unit time of a volume?
In other words, the physical meaning of “m^2” seems to get lost over all the different surface areas, and so what would be the proof that this meaning is preserved over all those different surface areas?
I know that Watts has a time unit in it, but the time unit seems to get distorted from its original meaning too, … by the “m^2”.
Yes, Watts is Joules per second. Essentially that graphic is saying the sun is shining on the surface the same as two 100Watt lamps over each square meter. Sounds rather on the low side to me, or is that because they have taken an “average” over the whole earth including at night & winter? If so this is one of the reasons that graphic is pure BS. Averages dont tell you what is physically going on. Such as the claim the global average temp is going up, the “warming”. Yet you can have an increase in an average when the lower numbers are higher, and even with the higher numbers going down, as long as the lower numbers go up more than the higher go down. Thus the “warming” is actually because winters are shorter and less cold. Tmax. in Canada at least, is going down since the 1930s.
What we need to counter that graphic is a more realistic one. I have yet to see a good one that accurately displays what is physically going on.
I suspect that a graphic that better depicted what is physically going on would have a few question marks on it.
As it should.
I’m involved in the political side of things up here in Canada, the conservatives. I have many times asked MPs to publicly make a proclamation that AGW theory has serious problems. I cited that when ever AGW comes up in the press there are far more comments by the public against AGW than for it, and those who are against it have rational well thought out rebuttals including links such as this. But not one of those MPs will even touch this topic publicly. Too afraid to be labeled a “denier”. We need to continue to pressure these politicians and show them how to counter the AGW cultist’s BS.
Joseph, I was hoping you’d get to debunking this assclown:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm
Just a friendly reminder from Afro, now in Missississipi.
Erhum, Mississippi. lol.
Same latitude as Arizona, but it doesn’t get as hot. Must be all that cooling water vapor. GHG theory is dead. Long live physics.
The people who make policies and who sustain official movements, unfortunately, are often innocent victims of scammers who have gained positions of power, where information distribution is concerned. Their emotions have been teased to highly active intensities that override any appeals to logic. The scammers have hooked these victims, and the sheer momentum of the large flow of scammer information keeps the victims charged, .. for what they think is a good cause. The good, however, is solidified by the emotional charge, NOT by the logic.
This is a tough gig to deal with. How do you break the emotional grip of the scammers?
Just yesterday, I was pondering the question, “How would I even begin to write a letter to the governor of my state that might convince her to reexamine her commitment to the United States Climate Alliance?” I consider such a commitment as an embarrassment to intelligent people who might live here. Emotional commitments are so difficult to budge, once they are established into a set of physical, daily habits.
AfroP,
I would show the guys at Skeptical Science the same consideration that they show JP, as follows:
John Cook and company at the website, Skeptical Science … https://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm …
pride themselves in having given a fair review of Joseph Postma’s paper, The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect … http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
Typical of their review of the paper are statements such as, “The claims are of course extraordinary.”
“Extraordinary” seems like a gross overstatement of Postma’s delivery of convincing facts that overturn the greenhouse theory. Characterizing Postma’s presentation as “extraordinary” further seems like tactical rhetoric designed to give readers the impression of a confident expert, when, in truth, the person critiquing Postma’s paper lacks both justified confidence and relevant expertise.
Cook and friends follow a rather predictable path in their opening few paragraphs, in trying to convince readers to stop before they even read the details, because, as they allege, the reputations of both Postma and his associates are inferior to the reputations of those whom Cook and friends hold in higher esteem. In other words, the Skeptical Science guys try to assasinate the character of the person they are pretending to critique.
This, in itself, should throw up a red flag for any truly intelligent person who might want to gain insight into alternative arguments concerning the greenhouse theory. Anytime a critic tries such a tactic so early in a presentation, one has to wonder what is the true motivation for writing the critique — is it to give a balanced review, or is it to bolster a personal bias by trying to recruit others to share this bias, without applying the necessary logic to weigh its merits?
I would suggest that Cook and company’s opening lines alone should deter readers from trying to ingest the Skeptical Science review and, instead, should encourage readers to click on Postma’s paper first. And realize that if a critic suggests that readers use the critic’s judgement of character as a reason for not even pursuing an alternate path of inquiry, then the critic himself is of questionable character.
In my … 2017/11/13 at 10:20 AM … post, I referred to the governor of my state as a “her”. I was thinking about the MAYOR of my CITY, who is, in fact, female. The comments still apply to the governor too (a male), but the mayor of my city is also on board with the United States Climate Alliance — a further embarrassment to intelligent people.
This “alliance” is a knee-jerk reaction to Trump’s now-old announcement about the USA withdrawal from the Paris Accord. Basically, fourteen states allied themselves to continue working towards the goals of that ill-conceived Accord. I cannot begin to describe the confusions in all this — the conflation of different views, misapplied definitions, mislabeling of substances, delusions about renewable energy — very scary.
AfroP,
In case you missed it (I just found it for the first time), JP’s debunking of the Skeptical [Non]Science Website article was done here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/06/astrophysicist-debunks-disinformation.html
The following passage from the Skeptical “Science” critique of JP’s paper has the most ridiculous implication:
Skeptical Science: “Postma then goes on to describe fictitious “boundary conditions.” In particular, he seems to have serious objections to the averaging of the solar radiative flux over the Earth. In essence, he would prefer we had one sun delivering 1370 W/m2 of energy to the planet, with a day side and a night side, noon and twilight, etc. instead of the simple model where we average 1370/4=342.5 W/m2 over the planet (so that the whole Earth is receiving the appropriate “average” solar radiation).”
Utterly ridiculous is the suggestion that rational minds OUGHT to accept a simple, grossly distorted model of reality, rather than a model that incorporates the most basic observations about reality. Highly rational people, thus, are at fault for wanting a “simple” model that accounts for the simply UNDENIABLE FACTS that there IS one sun, … there IS a day side and a night side. But no, let us just mush it into an average that ignores all this, because this is the most rationally simple thing to do. Seriously?!
Skeptical Science guys seem to have serious objections to the most fundamental requirements of modeling reality. They would prefer we had no clue how stupidity can be dressed up in correct grammar and syntax to appear like proper discourse.
Skeptical Science: “Postma is simply tackling a non-issue, just as how people criticize the term “greenhouse effect” for not working like a glass greenhouse. Postma objects to teaching this simple model because it is not real.”
Let us, therefore, NOT object to calling jelly made from pears “apple jelly”. Let us NOT object to calling skin burned beyond recognition “a good complexion”. Let us NOT object to calling hamster wheels “combustion engines”. Let’s just choose any word we want, regardless of its understood, functionally derived, long-standing meaning, and apply this word to any situation where we want a label whose sound we prefer. Forget history, forget context, forget new knowledge, forget everything that relates to the rational delineation of this word in its proper context, related to all that has come before to define it.
Great stuff Robert.
Can you believe that they say these things!!??
They are literally saying “Postma objects to models not being based in reality.” As if that is evidence against me. Total inversion of reality, words, thought, etc. Disgusting insect goblins.
Okay, one more:
Skeptical Science: “To summarize so far, Joseph E. Postma did not like a simple model of Earth’s radiative balance where we approximate the Earth as a sphere with uniform solar absorption. Of course, this is never done in climate modeling or in more detailed analyses appropriate for scholarly literature, so it is more an exercise in complaining about undergraduate education than an attempt to correct what he calls a “paradigm” in climatology.”
Now the Skeptical Science guys are switching focus from the “simple model” that starts the training of minds … to the complex computer models that these simply-modeled minds somehow advance to, in order to produce the grossly distorted predictions of future temperature anomalies. Somehow switching focus from a simple model to a complex model that fails adds little credibility to their line of … “reasoning”.
This type of long-winded display that Skeptical Science produces is yet again a prime example of how words can be fabricated into the appearance of rational thought, via the sheer mechanics of language, where the deeper substance of this language is pure crap.
The culinary equivalent would be to set a stage of mixing bowls, high-end food blenders, the finest cookware, the best stove, with mood lighting, state-of-the-art sink, etc., … and then begin to use all these resources meticulously in accordance to manufactures’ guidelines, and in accordance to well established cooking practices, … EXCEPT your main ingredient would be horse manure that you just scraped from the pasture.
You follow all the cooking directions. You proceed as though making a hearty soup, with your vegetables, and homemade chicken stock, imported whole spices that you grind by hand, … BUT your main ingredient is shit. No matter how you try to frame it, organize it, reconstitute it, flavor it, or present it, the final REAL impact is the impact of shit.
Now some people might be convinced by all the framing and presentation, even to the point of being talked into thinking that what they are consuming tastes good. But other people know the taste of, … well …, I don’t need to spell it out again, … when they taste it.
Bon Appétit !
That’s exactly it. Skilled sophistry. Maximum sophistry.
To review: sophistry = reasoning by clever but fallacious arguments
The fallacious character of the Skeptical Science critique lies in the article’s implied assumption that a simple model — even simple to the point of defying fundamental perceptions of reality — is an adequate model, as long as a consistent narrative can showcase it.
Joseph, I have an excellent example of why averaging things, such as the energy input/output, is completely meaningless.
Take a photograph of anything, some mountain view for example. Then add up every pixel’s colour number, and divide by the number of pixels. Apply that average to every pixel and what do you get? A flat grey image of nothing. This is what the flat earthers are doing.
Exactly! Spot on.
Good stuff, Robert. All true.
But you see, the whole point of debunking it is to never have to debunk it again.
Thanks for the link. The next time some asshat links the skepsci article, I will send them your link; although JP does not debunk every piece of it, such as the shifting vs. rotating lapse rate.
I love this blog. I disappear for two days, and Robert smashes skepsci to pieces.
Here’s my go at the Sleazy Science lapse-rate thing (correct me if I’m not quite right):
Lapse Rate Confusion
He claims that observations of the atmospheric lapse rate (the rate at which temperature declines with height) disallow the greenhouse effect. His reasoning is that the atmosphere is at a fixed height.
Actually, I believe that his characterization of the atmosphere is one of fixed DEPTH.
When greenhouse gases warm the surface, and cool the upper atmosphere, that height still remains fixed, but obviously the temperature difference between the bottom and top of the atmosphere must increase.
This assumes, of course, that greenhouse gases do warm the surface. For the sake of constructive argument, okay, let’s assume that this is true.
Postma then claims that this necessarily implies that the lapse rate must have a greater slope than the theoretical value that he derived of about -10 K per kilometer (which is about right for a dry air parcel ascending). That is, if the atmospheric height remains fixed, and the temperature difference between bottom and top is increased, then the rate at which air cools with height must increase. Since this is not observed, then we have a problem, right?
This is NOT observed. Right.
In actuality, the atmospheric height is a distraction. The adiabatic lapse rate does not extend beyond the point where convection breaks down, which is the tropopause. The whole point of the greenhouse effect is that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases does increase the “average” height at which emission to space takes place (and the tropopause increases in height too), so one IS allowed to extrapolate further down the adiabat to reach a higher surface temperature.
Again, I believe Postma’s term was “depth”, NOT “height”, and I believe that he was referring MASS of the atmosphere, … and actual “depth” within this actual mass. Talking about average height of emission is a DIFFERENT “height” that the Skeptical Science guys now bring up to make a point, even though they say that “atmospheric height is a distraction”.
Apparently, average “height” of emission is NOT a distraction, even though Skeptical Science brings it into an argument to distract from the distinction between actual depth in actual mass and imaginary “height” in mathematical conception. Skeptical Science is confusing distinct lines of argument, thereby conflating terms (or implying such conflation) that should not be conflated. THEY are the ones doing the distracting. Also, they are deflecting attention to “the point where convection breaks down”, which really is not necessary to bring into the discussion — it just serves to parade terminology and to suggest expertise [Oh wow, these guys really know their stuff. … NOT !]
If the “greenhouse effect” increases average “height” at which emission to space
takes place, then the “greenhouse effect” also increases average SURFACE AREA from which emission to space takes place. If they acknowledge the significance of the “height” increase, which is the radius increase with respect to the globe, then they MUST acknowledge the significance of the surface-area increase that this “height”/radius increase causes. More average surface area would now radiate to space.
By merely extrapolating down, while ignoring this surface-area increase, they defy mathematical and physical logic by preventing a sphere of increasing radius from increasing in surface area. They would say that the surface-area increase is insignificant, at which point I would say that the “height” increase leading to the “insignificant” surface area increase would also appear to be insignificant. Otherwise, we would have an insignificant surface-area increase produced by a significant “height”/radius-increase.
One dimension of reality must be more significant than another. I suppose that thought habits in other areas of science might contribute to this seeming contradiction. After all, am I not correct in believing that string theory operates on the idea of entities that have extension without thickness? .. or that atomic physics conceives of particles that have zero sensible mass? In the micro-world this somehow seems workable, but in the macro-world, it somehow seems even more absurd.
They’re not trying to do science or physics…they’re just sophists looking to make an appearance.
If the lapse rate is fully explained by the equation with gravity and thermal capacity, but the RGHE claims responsibility for the RGHE, then the RGHE is debunked because what it is supposed to explain is already explained by other physics.
Then, acknowledging the physics which explains the lapse rate, then if there are other factors which would change the lapse rate they should then be observed by a modulation in the lapse rate, but they’re not, and the lapse rate is ONLY that which is already explained by the other physics.
Not only that, but when the strongest so-called “greenhouse gas” is present, i.e. water vapour, the lapse rate is still that calculated from the other existing physics of gravity and thermal capacity.
And, when water vapour is present, it *lowers* the lapse rate, whereas if the RGHE were real it would have increased the lapse rate.
I was referring to this diagram:
First he mislabels your tropopause as “top of the atmosphere” to make you look like a fool, while his version goes into the stratosphere.
Of course I know you’re right.
Their shifting lapse rate curve is disgusting and obscene.
Greater height of emission would mean more area from which to emit, thus no reason to extrapolate down, because a compensatory amount of radiation would follow from the INCREASE in average emission-height SURFACE AREA. And if you say that my surface-area increase is insignificant, then I ask you to justify how your height/radius increase is not thereby also reduced to insignificance. How can one dimension of physical, sensible reality (and its effect) be more significant than another dimension of physical, sensible reality (and ITS effect)?
… sort of like a boiling water bubble, even if you entertained the claimed mechanism.
“Greater height of emission would mean more area from which to emit”
That’s a good point. More area emitting at the same temperature means more energy being emitted which requires more energy input…but…there’s no more energy input since the sun is constant, and they’re pulling a Willis Eschenbach!
This is why the tropospheric hot-spot was never found. Because if it could have ever existed it would have violated the law of conservation of energy…which means it could never have existed hence could never be found.
This is a nice tie-up up their emission height argument Robert, thanks. After all this time never thought about it because of dealing with other arguments. But with our refresh of the Willis debacle violating energy conservation with his “rounding errors”, it applies directly to their emission height argument. Just as with Willis, if the same temperature is emitting over a larger surface area, then more total energy is being emitted which therefore requires more input to match…but there is no more input. The scheme is false.
I thought the “more energy being emitted” would be from a COOLER temperature, since the emission height would increase, hence the temperature at that height would DEcrease.
The argument, as I have understood it, seems to be that emission from a greater height lowers the energy of the emission at this new emission height, which means that more emission at higher temperatures are happening somewhere deeper in the atmosphere and are “held back” , propagated downwards to increase surface temperature. But this seems to ignore the fact that surface area of emission would also increase AT THAT LOWER TEMPERATURE, and the greater surface area over which the lower-temperature emission would occur compensates for the reduction in energy of emission at the new height.
They try to hold the surface area the same, while increasing the height/radius-of-emission-sphere and lowering the temperature, but, seemingly, the correct way to think would be to increase the height, lower the temperature, and INCREASE the SURFACE AREA of emission at that LOWER TEMPERATURE. No need for extra energy. The surface area increase at the lower temperature of the increased height would seem to hold things in check. Even if you do not add more energy, the idea fails, when all the dimensions of reality are accounted for.
They are ignoring a major implication of their own model, namely that an increase in area requires an increase in surface area, and an increase in surface area requires an expansion outward/upward of the imaginary emission-height shell, which places the emission shell in a lower-temperature region of the atmosphere but NOW with GREATER SURFACE AREA than before.
A greater surface area emitting at a now lower temperature would seem to come to equilibrium the same as a smaller surface area emitting at a previously higher temperature, right? They want you to believe that the surface area does NOT change “significantly”, but rather stays the same, so that the SAME surface area emits at a lower temperature.
But, NO, this would NOT be the case. Rather, a LARGER surface area would now emit at the LOWER temperature. No Stefan-Boltzmann retro-engineering mathemagic can save the premise now.
… if I’m thinking correctly.
No but see…if the altitude of emission increased but was at a cooler temperature, then nothing actually changed and the near-surface air temperature would still be the same. So we need more than just that the emission height increased and but a lower temperature. Remembers it’s the emission temperature which must remain constant because this is defined by the effective temperature which is determined only by other things which are constant (sun, albedo, distance). You need the previous emission height to become warmer, so that the average emission height corresponding to the effective temperatures increases, so that the bottom-of-atmosphere increases in temperature. So if the height of the emission temperature increased so that the new average emission occurs at a higher altitude, then you have more energy being emitted that isn’t actually provided, etc. Pulling a Willis.
I cannot imagine why so much effort is expended on attempting to counter the “radiation physics” view of what makes climate tick. Who are you or anyone else trying to impress with that sort of detailed analysis? Forget the nonsense about CO2, greenhouses and radiation. With 70.8% of our planet water and 75% in the Tropics, evaporation, convection, vertical latent heat transfer nicely stabilises our climate, aided by 60 year ups and downs due to solar perturbations.
I think that I see your point, but now I’m thinking that this reveals an even greater plethora of contradictions. Not to confuse things, but I’m really trying to understand this. Here’s what I’m thinking now:
The emission temperature MUST remain the same, as this defines the EFFECTIVE temperature. So, first, we must get through the first denial by the GHT guys, who say that no “significant” emission-surface-area results from the increased emission height/radius. But the area MUST be significant, if the height/radius is significant. They cannot escape that there is an emission surface-area increase to that imaginary spherical shell whose surface is the defining surface of the “average height of emission”.
BUT, big BUT, this admission of reality forces the height of emission into a lower temperature, which now seemingly lowers the EFFECTIVE temperature, which seems like a contradiction. Because how could the effective temperature be what it is defined to be, if it now moves to a lower temperature? CONTRADICTION.
So, give them the delusion of NO emission-surface-area increase, but greater height and lower temperature, which now forces the layer where emission occurs to be located higher up in the atmosphere but lower in temperature, which requires MORE energy from a magical reservoir that does NOT exist to warm the layers below, so that the effective temperature might still be resurrected from those layers below.
Is this anywhere near correct?
I guess my confusion could be a system of counter-sophistry, … like counter-terrorism.
… performing sophistry on the sophists.(^_^) … like conning the con.
[to entertain the GHT claims] You need the previous emission height to become warmer, so that the average emission height corresponding to the effective temperatures increases, so that the bottom-of-atmosphere increases in temperature.
I’m just not seeing why this would require the bottom-of-atmosphere to increase in temperature. It seems like everything would just adjust, layer-by-layer upward, in accord with he new emission altitude (height), … NOT a cascading temperature increase downward, but a cascading, compensatory emission-surface-area expansion upward throughout the entire thickness of the atmospheric mass, to keep equilibrium. No temperature increase at surface, because of an offset by mass adjustment to the increased emission demands.
Do you like my counter-sophistry?
So if the height of the emission temperature increased so that the new average emission occurs at a higher altitude, then you have more energy being emitted that isn’t actually provided, etc. Pulling a Willis.
If the new average emission occurred at a higher altitude, would this higher altitude not be at a lower temperature, which would redefine the emission temperature and NOT be the SAME effective temperature anymore? Would it not require continually redefining the effective temperature? — a cyclical fallacy? or continual contradiction?
Yours truly,
Count Sophisticus
I’m beginning to think that the whole “effective height of radiation” concept is one big piece of sophistry anyway, and so I won’t spend anymore time trying to dissect faults in its application.
In and of itself alone, it is faulty to begin with. If sophists can use it to make claims, then I can use it to make counterclaims that contradict by using confusion and conflation to mistakenly conceive of a mathematical fiction as a real physical shell somewhere “up there” in the air.
That effing hick Eschenbach has yet another thread at Magic Gas Watts’ place, barking about how
“the cold gas blocking light to the planet, is making the planet hotter.”
Government employee Joshua Halpern is over there as ”really skeptical” – at least I think it’s him – bragging about how he knows all about the magical gassiness and how insulation making less light reach a sensor,
makes the sensor detect and depict more light reaching the sensor,
every time the insulation
makes less light reach the sensor.
I basically cursed out Watts and Eschenbach individually but of course the public won’t ever see it.
I asked those two effing hicks to finally explain to me – personally – how much more light warms the planet,
for every percent less light,
green house gases make reach, and warm the planet.
I reminded them that Eschenbach is a MASSEUSE with a MASSAGE certificate from the 1970s,
and that Watts is a college dropout who sells electric cars.
Oh man is that what they are….lol.
Yeah, they’re just despicable. Watts is a Democrat posing as a ”California Republican.” You might not be extra savvy about American politics Joseph, but a ”California Republican” is often a derogatory term for government and power worshipping money grabbers who are troubled by the e.n.o.r.m.o.u.s. number of activist Democrats at every, single, political meeting in California.
They carve out themselves some power, by defecting – and in joining the Republican party, they take their thieving, identity-based politics, where they can sing about ”Me, me, MEEEE!!” and they simply mole away at the Republican party there.
Ok – Watts, is a Republican leader in the Northern California region around Chico, which is a buncha farmland, and they have a University extension there. They’ve got a whole school and everything, a very classic ”college” town, where the downtown area is hipster coffee bars, and this kinda thing, and the politics in the area – Watts schlepps his way around there, and he’s an electric car salesman.
Have you ever heard of ”ZEV2G0” vehicles? ZEV stands for ”Zero Emissions Vehicle, and is a government term.
He sells those things on Ebay. He was selling them when he started his site, Watts Up With That.
And guess what else he sells, Joseph. * HE MARKETS SOFTWARE THAT PRINTS OUT ALL KINDS OF C.O.L.O.R.F.U.L. SPAGHETTI G.R.A.P.H.S.
I had gone on to explain more about Watts’ politics and crooked path to full-time scientific fraud,
barking how the magical gassiness dun
”made the sky uh big ol’ heedur, an how – yew noe –
thim green hows gaisses,
is the
magical core,
of the cold nitrogen bath that’s uh… magical giant heedur.
In thuh sky. YaW.
It’s a cold nitrogen bath,
but… it’s a giant heater.
And the
light refractive insulation
mixed into cold nitrogen bath
conduction stripping energy from the light-warmed rocky planet surface,
the light refractive insulation
stopping 20% of the otherwise available warming firelight from the sun
from ever even entering Earth’s physical and mathematical systems
are the magical
”HeeDuR Core, YaW!!”
What a couple of f***g slugs, crawling on scientific discourse leaving those slime trails of fraud, and faked energy handling
a CHILD can identify.
I told those two stinking foreskins of fraud, that .their infernal fraud and fakery church
has them answering the question,
”What happens to the temperatures of light-warmed rocks,
insulation makes 20% less light
reach and warm?”
with the answer
”If the magical gassiness
makes the light not never git to the rocks,
the tim pur chur uv thim rocks
goes up,
evur time the magical gassiness,
makes less light reach em to warm em!”
I’m just venting guys, I despise f***ng frauds. I despise those two m***rf****rs the way anybody naturally despises a child molester. Because that’s what they are, in a way.
Steyn was right, Mann, Watts, Eschenbach, Cook: they’re m.a.t.h. m.o.l.e.s.t.e.r.s.
They’re molesting the minds of children from schools around the world,
inserting into those minds that – it’s alright to do, and pull off a.n.y. kind of f.r.a.u.d. you can get a.w.a.y. with – as long as you have somebody with some media savvy, to spread filth about the people who catch you,
and tell you to stop m.o.l.e.s.t.i.n.g. the s.c.i.e.n.c.e.s.
you have absolutely z.e.r.o. reason to be in.
When I was a young man, my parents were both business people and government enforcers, on the various local family member fronts, and as a YOUNG boy, in single digits’ ages, I remember older family members sitting around and observing as part of conversation that various MEDICAL SCIENCE people, had retired early or switched specific fields,
when government employees started pulling the VERY same type chemistry scam over pot.
Just – make a buncha shit up, and because you pay them to spread the fraud, and they hold the keys to the power of officiating personnel, start putting your political enemies in prison, and breaking them all financially till they literally do not have roofs, over their befuddled heads.
That’s what this all is. It’s a giant government chemistry scam that got so big, government employees simply dared the entire world, to make them stop perpetrating the fraud. It started out as a grants scam by James Hansen, hence the early ”tropopause CO2 concentration levels” element to the scam, because he had something he could claim only he could study, up in a place that was very easy to convince people they couldn’t go, to check with the certainty he could.
Many years ago I heard from the voice of Hansen’s supervisor, the entire inside-and-out of the scam, how they claim, they can calculate temperatures of compressible fluids refusing to use the necessary mathematics to account for the compression warming intrinsic to physical behavior of compressible fluids… how the reason the fake STEFAN-BOLTZMANN MASSAGE TRICK doesn’t WORK is because the TEMPERATURES DERIVED D.O. NOT MATCH TRUE TEMPERATURES AS MEASURED with INSTRUMENTS, BECAUSE of this difference and that – in the case of our Earth, and our global atmosphere the MANDATORY ERROR of such PSEUDO-CALCULATIONS is
that’s right, 33 d.e.g.r.e.e.s.
And he explained how, if you don’t see gas law in the string of calculations, – AS IN ALL THESE CURRENT SO-CALLED ‘MODELS’ of CLIMATE – they AREN’T, because they don’t PROCESS GAS TEMPERATURES using GAS LAW – not one of them do them all because they REQUIRE the 33 DEGREE SHORTFALL to INVENT a ”ghg effect” that doesn’t exist,
he explained how ANY ONE taking apart any model built on this STEFAN-BOLTZMANN//REFUSAL TO PROCESS GAS TEMPS USING GAS LAW at the APPROPRIATE JUNCTURE to account for this compression warming – will SEE,
that NOWHERE in the MODEL
is there PROPER accounting of the COMPRESSION.
This is HOW
you SHORT CIRCUIT all that mathematics bullshit
by going STRAIGHT to the REAL DEAL: WHY CAN’T YOU CALCULATE THE TEMPERATURE of the GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE and MATCH the ANSWERS arrived at creating foundations of the
International Standard Atmosphere?
We know that temperature mathematic progression is correct, it’s the international regulatory AND PHYSICAL STANDARD,
we – ultimately, calibrate and compare all our instruments to, in legal liability and warranty of everything that generates heat – which happens – you know – in air, or not, mostly..
when you ask them this you are RIGHT ON the INITIAL FRAUD of the MOVEMENT: faking
calculation of gases’ temperatures,
REFUSING to USE the gas law responsible for taking care of this compression-related temperature differential, in – again – compressible phase fluids.
This is why you see me ask them why they can’t even hit the International Standard Atmosphere.
Their mathematics fall 33 degrees short so they INVENT FAKE WARMING BY A CLASS of GASES which are actually the COOLANTS
of the
cold nitrogen bath
COOLING
the planet by
conduction scrubbing energy from it.
Once you have it established that we all know that they’re operating from FAKE TEMPERATURE PARAMETERS you kinda already have them rolled up because WITHOUT that 33 FAKE DEGREES THERE IS
NO
SCAM.
WITH IT
you have what you see sweeping the planet globally: the vestiges of this gigantic fraud.
And you’ve GOTTA know what to say, to go RIGHT to the HEEL of their FIRST mathematical fraud.
When YOU don’t DO this
YOU BECOME
PART of the SCAM because the SCAM,
is
KEEP em ARGUING with you. (With them.)
This is why you guys can’t defeat them swiftly and shut down entire forums, in just a few days, because when you attack the heads of the fraud hydra downstream from the original fraud,
you’re HELPING them PERPETRATE the FRAUD as they ”take time to ”explain” it all to you.”
THAT’S part of the FRAUD.
KEEP you OFF the ORIGINAL ERROR in their FRAUDULENT MATH SYSTEM
so you can’t get that shit sorted out and move on to a bigger, brighter, less fraudulent day.
The name of the gas law they refuse to use is the Ideal Gas Law and it comes in two parts.
The first part is the equation, PV=nRT.
Now – in this law, this ”second part” is the CHART: a painstakingly drawn up list of all the gases and more common gas mixtures, and their internal energy holding capacity.
This is ANOTHER place you get them with GAS LAW: you tell them to SHOW you the PART of the CHART that has CO2 holding more energy than Standard class atmospheric air.
*The Chart Assigns CO2 LESS ENERGY than AIR*
Therefore by mathematical definition,
addition of CO2 to Standard air mix,
LOWERS it’s TEMPERATURE.
Not raises it.
The other thing here is the part where pressure and volume, equate to the other side of… well… the equation that COMPRISES the LAW for GAS TEMPERATURE.
When you’ve got these gas energy handling mathematics at some point along the way, you deal with figuring out what the pressure actually is so you know how much mass, you’re dealing with.
For the love of Gaia I just lost my entire train of thought, my wife came in, and I don’t remember the hydrostatic equation, it’s very short – in any case the hydrostatic equation, gives you the answer, called in gas mechanics, the ”hydrostatic condition.” Again, this is the pressure of the gas,
and the higher pressure, the higher temperature, in general with gases. You know, this is for a very simple reason: when the individual molecule can expand, and not encounter other electrons, from other molecules, to hand energy back and forth to, it’ll simply hold more energy, without leaking any out.
When you have many many gas molecules colliding with the sides of an air pump, they can hand off, a lot of energy, and do.
When you reduce the pressure the gas is susceptible to, you’re definitionally giving it’s electrons, just plain more space to expand out, accommodating the energy it entangles, by what we call inflation. The electron occupies a larger geometric space as the light it has entangled, now kinda reverted to a more standard electromagnetic energy package, a more generic nomenclature or name, not photonic at the moment, but entangled with this electron, – it’s the cause of inflation in gases.
Convection itself is partly due to inflation. The inflation’s not a lot of course but gases, whose electrons can occupy large spaces, hold similar energies, at lower temperatures. Because… why? Because, we’re only measuring, whatever leaks out, see. And generally, your leakage in the atmosphere of course is to the neighboring molecules, and we’re right back around to the point, where we started out talking about how gases, seem to hold less energy, – they do – when they’re compressed.
They hand the energy they encounter through various means, through contact with each other,
and when you compress many of them into say an iron tube, if you heat one side, what happens is that they start handing it off, very swiftly – and so, the other side of the tube rapidly gets hot.
Ok. So – what’s the VERY first fraud in this?
Claiming to be able to calculate temperatures of gases, REFUSING to USE gas LAW at the proper point.
What is this called? STEFAN-BOLTZMANN FRAUD.
Question you ask the hick you’re exposing: WHY is there even a gas law AT ALL? Why do we NEED a gas law?
Answer – one part is ACCOUNTING for PRESSURE vs VOLUME MASS VARIATION so intrinsic to – WHAT phase matter?
COMPRESSIBLE phase matter.
What is the EXACT nature of the ”STEFAN-BOLTZMANN” fraud?
The answer: REFUSING to ACCOUNT for the HYDROSTATIC CONDITION.
What is the layman’s ”hydrostatic condition” term? PRESSURE.
Intrinsically variable pressure is
WHY you HAVE to have a GAS LAW, at ALL,
and
GHG EFFECT FRAUDS
do not PROCESS the temperatures of *Compressible phase matter properly:
instead,
processing the gases as though they are i.n.c.o.m.p.r.e.s.s.i.b.l.e. – or that the compression has already been accounted for. That’s the actual situation with gases, when you have done the hydrostatic equation
using properly processed gas law mathematics,
and accounted for
pressure,
the MAGIC 33 DEGREE SHORTFALL
the TRAGIC 33 degree mandatory shortfall
REQUIRED if you DON’T use proper gas law to calculate say,
our Global Atmosphere – it * click *
goes away, and you’re
no longer processing F.R.A.U.D.
That’s how the scam’s original fakery is done, and un-done.
If you let them argue with you about ANYTHING ELSE you have ALREADY agreed to LOSE – and HELP perpetuate the fraud. Because in fraud, KEEPING them TALKING about it STOPS them from DOING something ABOUT YOU.
This is why I often come here Joseph and say these same things over and over. My parents were involved in busting chemistry frauds when I was a child and there is a rule for busting scientific fraud: go DIRECTLY to the VERY first VIOLATION of PHYSICAL and MATHEMATICAL LAW: and
DON’T let them DRIVE you OFF that POINT.
They’ll go insane as you saw the vampire Anthony Watts, magic gas barking fraud, do. Remember how he used to and still does, seem to normal people to go insane and start ranting about how ”offended” he is, about YOU – the SCIENTIST – talking about YOUR – scientific profession?
A profession HE couldn’t ENTER because he was so STUPID? yEAH that’s because he can’t stand you pointing out his FRAUD
is a TRANSPARENT
F R A U D and it VIOLATES MATHEMATICAL and PHYSICAL LAW.
And in the case of Watts’, Eschenbach’s, Cook’s F R A U D,
it’s a TYPE fraud called an ”inversion” fraud where EARLY on, certain critical parameters are REVERSED, and you’re FORBIDDEN to EVER again – by people perpetrating these type frauds – to invoke, THERMODYNAMIC LAW: because these laws are SO transparent, EVERYONE knows a lot of them.
Conservation of Energy is the main one in these temperature inversion frauds because it’s a case of everytime a mathematic is performed, or witnessed, less must become more – or conversely, more, less.
I busted these frauds as a child with my parents and actually sat around while they boned up on several different chemistry frauds being practiced by people in the animal medicines and nutritional markets. Pets and veterinary nutritional and medical chemistry fraud used to be even more rampant than it was, and in the case of many of my parents’ investigations into people, it was exotic and rare fish, which were being trafficked, and these animals if nothing else, are atmospherically sensitive. The water they live in is of course their atmosphere and it’s in direct contact with the surface above; and fish, as well as a shitload of other animals in our environment, use this interface to great advantage in leveraging the power and robustness of gills, and breathing through their skins.
Part of animal chemistry in trafficking them is their health, and bad atmosphere makes shit get sick and die. So there was a LOT – I mean a SHITLOAD of atmospheric chemistry work in my parents’ pets and fish business – and, in having people scam you by keeping these aquatic critters, in bad water.
Since they’re breathing through their skin, or through gills, or through some combination of it, you have to be able to sort out medical pathologies in these critters, against the claims of how they’ve been handled.
All of this is environmental, and atmospheric chemistry on a very advanced, and an accelerated, scale, because you have these quantities of chemicals – the animals and their environments – compacted so they’re reacting like yon house afire, so to speak at times, many MANY times more sensitive than actual larger bodies of water for the simple reason there’s so much natural dilution of any kind of input – thermal, gas, liquid, solids – more water, is more buffering against some kinda poisoning. Things swim, crawl, float, migrate away from a poison or whatever kind of unpleasantness is happening.
Later on I had done all that for some years in my parents’ businesses, and was gonna go into a different field and I chose – radiation related, electronic engineering – generating, amplifying, encoding with intelligence then transmitting, capturing and decoding, then ultimately discarding – radiation.
A lot of it in the field of – go figure, infrared communications: down fiber, even down into remotes. Radiant communications electronic engineering is arranging chemicals – metals, liquids, elements like silica – into radiation generation devices.
So when I was out on my day job in school for radiant communications electronic engineering and this guy came on and explained the entirety of the green house gas scam’s ORIGINS in VERY clear detail,
I knew wtF he was saying,
and I knew to start watching Hansen,
and I knew that whereas I had been thinking of applying for work at N.A.S.A
I might be wanting to watch what I was saying around whom, if such a huge scam was actually going on – and my parents were both in business on one side – and on the other side, one of my parents was in local then later, Federal law enforcement so I knew what happens when a bureaucracy is overtaken with frauds; and I knew what to look for.
This is a temperature inversion fraud where a cold nitrogen bath scrubbing a light-warmed rock,
is claimed to be heating it.
Then alternately is claimed to be cooling it slower.
But then there’s the claim of the magical heater core, the green house gases, actually raising the temperature of the planet 33 degrees.
This fraudulent claim is nowhere in the procession of mathematics involved in deriving the REAL global atmospheric temperature, and the REAL
physical
and regulatory
INTERNATIONAL CALIBRATION STANDARD,
named the International Standard Atmosphere.
It’s FRAUDULENT MATHEMATICS from RIGHT THERE: where the TEMPERATURES of the PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES are fraudulently PSEUDO-CALCULATED
REFUSING to use GAS LAW
mandatory in discovering temperatures of COMPRESSIBLE phase matter – fluids. Gases.
This is STEFAN-BOLTZMANN FRAUD and is how the FRAUDS spreading it contrive to come up with some sort of ”effect.”
The cold nitrogen bath conduction scrubbing the light-warmed rocky planet is not a heater.
The water-dominated class of gases called green house gases because they refract the same frequencies of light typically emitted by the Earth in infrared, are coolants.
The water mainly but the green house gases overall, stop 20% of otherwise available warming spectra from the sun,
from ever entering into Earth’s physical and mathematical system.
This first reduction of surface energy density through refraction,
is further enhanced by yet more cooling, the conduction cooling the overwhelmingly cooler gases, are doing,
and on top of that,
the main green house gas is also a
phase change refrigerant,
engaging in 24/7 evaporative/condensation enhancement of the standard single-phase gases’
more classical and simple conduction cooling.
This phase change refrigeration extends not just to Earth’s surface and related features but to refrigeration of the overall nitrogen/oxygen bath, the light blocking refrigerant, is mixed into.
You must get around in front of these people and make it known to those investigating, whether they’re participating or not – you MUST make it clear that these people are operating from the fraud of not calculating gas temperatures right, in the first place: and this way others will be able to more clearly understand how you can be so confident that every single step along the way,
more and more thermodynamic violations are going to come from the scuzz-ball frauds, perpetrating this fakery.
You must also explain to them how, and kinda give them the entire run down about the Ideal Gas Law being the law they refuse to use: and the REASON such a gas law must exist: to account for the compression of – COMPRESSIBLE phase matter.
Once you do this, it becomes very easy to sort everyone out. Until you do this, they just go round, and round, and round, and you
become
the scam.
Do you hear what I’m saying to you guys? When you discuss anything but the very first violations
you are perpetrating the fraud: get paid,
to argue with you. That’s the fraud.
Get paid,
to argue.
And you’re the mark.
So whatcha gotta do to any fraud is find out the very first place it’s provable they can’t, or AREN’T, counting properly, and the VERY first place is also where – GO FIGURE
you see this CLAIM
of some NON EXISTENT EFFECT,
being CLAIMED to EXIST
in order to ACCOUNT
for – in this case – these frauds’ FAKERY creating a 33 DEGREE SHORTFALL from the REAL
CALCULATIONS
which lead directly and obviously – to our REAL global atmospheric temperature.
To our REAL global atmospheric temperature,
regulatory and physical
calibrational Standard.
________________
Much love, Joseph. (Pounds chest and extends fist like a Roman) Much love to you, and all these other slayers, who have done your best
to defy
these evil
lying
fraudulent fucks.
I knew when you started out Joseph, that you’re just an honest well meaning man, in an ocean of evil assed lying m***f***rs called ”Academics” and the poltical lackeys they play,
like the scum
Watts, Eschenbach, Halpern, Cook, et al.
I could see very clearly that you were gonna have to figure out how to deal with these people on your own; it was your career, and your reputation that you were pushing the chips ”All In” with.
I grew up around those bastards. Well.. you know… the bastards just like them from another time, and somewhat other field of general, environmental, atmospheric,
chemistry fraud.
I don’t come here to taunt you Joseph or derail your threads, it’s about the only place I come to discuss this fraud at all, except at times to descend on some forum of hicks and burn their fucking huts down around their ears while they all have to watch it happen to each other. I do that more rarely nowadays since in general the word is out that it’s a scam, and since my wife has bought a second house, and both my sons are looking like they’re about to buy them.
Mr. Technology, retired, is now Mr. ‘Does all that nasty stuff nobody else will’ UN-retired, in two states.
I appreciate being able to come here and vent some about this Joseph and like I said I’m not trying to really derail your conversations. I’ll kinda confess. A lot of the most illuminating conversations I ever read in my life were encountered in situations I’ll claim are similar to this one. Big field of discussion overall, huge scam, huge story – and someone who understood the whole thing because by some fluke they were following it from – I dunno somewhere around the beginning – would come in and just give forth this big explanation of the thing from the standpoint of someone who had a specialists’ knowledge in the matter but didn’t have to give a shit because they retired out or came along after the scam was big, and managed to duck it.
I managed to kinda just push it aside in my own field in everyday work, because we radiation engineers are the guys people call when they want to magnify their own field, a thousand times. Like say… brain surgery. Or… rice farming.
Wireless radiant energy, used in communications, is some of the most widely applied technology on earth, appended to every conceivable form of human endeavor from leveling a field for a new subdivision, to figuring out how level a field is on Mars. We just, are involved or are interested, in understanding almost everything under the sun ever created by mankind, because as electronics people, we’re always being asked to multiply those endeavors’ efficiency.
And then I personally of course grew up in a fantastic situation where my parents where both scientists, on the one side – my mothers’ AND my fathers – and cops: and we BUSTED people doing scams in the VERY fields of environmental, and atmospheric, chemistry.
So I think about this scam a lot and how I can sorta salt the conversations you guys have, as you all go about sorting out how to deal with so much fraud, spread so far, so fast.
As I said. You take them to the VERY first PLACE it can be documented ANY of them are committing a fraud, and THAT,
is in
James Hansen’s ”models” – they’re not atmospheric models because atmospheric temperature calculations are not processed, in them – and the
INTENTIONAL
REFUSAL to CALCULATE temperatures of gas volumes CORRECTLY.
Again this is done by REFUSING to INVOKE the proper GAS LAW – dealing with compressible phase matter
and it RESULTS in there being a 33 degree SHORTFALL in the Church’s VERY FIRST CALCULATIONS.
This 33 degree shortfall places them having arrived at ONE temperature for our Global atmosphere
while the REAL global atmospheric temperature
is
set in stone
in the mathematics processes used to derive our International
calibrational Standard
named the International Standard Atmosphere.
If you go anywhere else and argue about other things,
ALWAYS makes sure before you leave, you TAUNT them about this.
Because this is at the VERY BASIS of proving it’s A.L.L. fraud: from THAT fake,
STEFAN-BOLTZMANN-only PROCESSING FRAUD
it’s
ALL
FAKE.
And if you can SHOW that to people
you don’t have to go around, and around, to ”kinda” set things clear.
At any moment you can simply say to them, ”YOUR LEADERS can’t even CALCULATE global ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE PROPERLY,” and from that point, run it all down.
Make them NAME the GAS law responsible for discovering and processing gas, and atmospheric temperatures. It’s the Ideal Gas Law.
Make them EXPLAIN to you why there has to BE: another law, and you can’t just USE – the Stefan-Boltzmann processing you would for NON compressible phase matter.
Point out that they don’t know wtF they’re even talking about and then go on to explain to those looking on that the reason he doesn’t know the name of that law is because HIS CHURCH REFUSES TO USE IT when they ARRIVE at the ERRONEOUS, 33-DEGREES-short TEMPERATURE they ”PSEUDO-CALCULATE” that ”temperature”
so they can INVENT A FAKE WARMING.
Point out that that warming
is SOLELY the result of compression – of pressure –
and that it’s intrinsic to compressible phase matter that it’s mass/volume ratio is – well… fluid.
I mean that’s not a pun, really, the gases are compressible fluids, and this rapidly changing, in fact intrinsically variable mass to volume ratio, is the reason – well, PART of the reason,
there has to BE another law, for compressible phase matter temperature calculations.
I hope, I really do, I’m doing you and your audience a service, Joseph, even though I suppose a lot of these long screeds I type are purest of off-topic hijackings. I apologize to you again as I have multiple times since meeting you and coming here, for my enthusiasm for using your forum,
as a place to express what I know about it.
I want you all to know that I hope you each and every one, get to enjoy the personal satisfaction of destroying many of these nests of frauds, and I do hope, that my words contribute to your confidence in dealing with these people.
You must make them ashamed to be saying what they’re saying and they will not be ashamed,
until what you say,
can very
VERY EASILY
PROVE – that not a FUCKIN’ ONE of THEM can COUNT.
NOT a FUCKIN’ ONE. Not Michael Mann, not James Hansen, not Joshua Halpern, not Jonathan Cook or whatever that molester’s name is – not Anthony Watts, not that mentally ill hick Willis Eschenbach.
PROVING to them all
in FRONT of them all
that not a ONE of them can even COUNT well enough
to realize the FATAL error of not being able to calculate the global atmospheric temp right
is a BIG effing slap in the face because that
”INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY and PHYSICAL STANDARD”
is not gonna be argued with. That temperature is RIGHT.
THEIRS doesn’t MATCH it,
so – THAT’S the end of their shit RIGHT there till THEIR math
matches YOUR
and international physical and regulatory Standards’,
math.
There are gonna be scores, hundreds of people who come by and read what we’re saying here guys and I know I personally go on too long, and sometimes when I’m out in the sticks on my phone only, I post up some sloppy, sloppy grammar errors.
To tell you the truth Joseph I myself had a sorta personal… reckoning with the extent of all this fraud, and it shames me and disgraces me to the core to know my beloved scientific discourse and integrity, has been dragged through the molester-porn world of the professional political scientific darkener – like Cook, Eschenbach, Halpern, Watts, Joanne Nova, et al.
They’re just f***ng lying frauds, whose understandings of the matter after all these years leave them still vulnerable to being told to their faces, ”you’re so f***g stupid you can’t even tell me the name of the law of thermodynamics responsible for processing gas and atmospheric temperatures.”
The moment you do this you catch them TWICE.
First because their ORIGINAL FRAUD is in CALCULATING atmospheric temperature, LEAVING OUT the proper GAS LAW
and then secondly because the CHART of energies of gases and mixes,
specifically
names and quantifies CO2 vs Standard, atmospheric air mix,
and gives CO2 the LOWER energy per mole, per volume.
In other words, it’s COOLER than air, and COOLS air when it’s mixed in.
So – you knowing this law and the DUAL PINCER that BRINGING IT UP CREATES for THE FRAUDS is CRITICAL to your having a sure footing when you start talking to them about who can count,
and who’s an innumerate, illiterati HICK.
((Peace Joseph)) ((all you other guys trying to stamp this evil shit out.))
You are all to be commended for trying to spread the word to the largest number of people possible.
Please don’t forget what I’ve told you here today if you’re a reader, whether new to busting this scam or not – even if it’s kinda presumptuous to say it all here, at Joseph’s place.
I know, I know, I should start my own.
Maybe I will. Somebody’s gotta be able to explain it all to my grandkids who are now being born in succession, several of them, matter of fact.
But for now please accept that this is my *humble* explanation of this scam before you people.
It’s humble because I haven’t taken any credit where it’s not due, I didn’t discover the scam’s nature and origin on my own, I heard Hansen’s ex supervisor explain the scam, to a reporter on PBS one day when I was out in a field, working toward my Bachelor’s in Radiant Communications Electronic Engineering,
and being a working, professional grade atmospheric and environmental chemist and environmental biologist by the time I was in my teens,
atmospheric chemistry was just a natural thing to me; and my upcoming career in Rad/Comms Electronic Engineering meant there was a strong chance, I’d go to work for N.A.S.A.
so when I heard about a big chemistry scam being afoot, I perked up and listened intently, and simply never forgot it because the conversation just happened to be down two sides, of the main street, my education was/is based in: the chemistry
of all things.
And in particular
the chemistry and physics involved in radiant and electromagnetic
energy transfer and handling.
And then there was the third part of my education that made me savvy to this sorta thing going on: my father was a political activist, a police chief, and later, a Federal law enforcement professional,
and I had the inside scoop on how
chemistry scams are busted,
because he lent his authority where he could, to help my mother bust them,
and I had the inside scoop, on how bureaucratic purgings take place, and where to look to see if the scam was actually broken or just had been made public.
I knew the operatives like Watts and Eschenbach and Cook would do a lot of the heavy lifting for the government employees who did their parts, by threatening to prosecute people who were trying to reveal the fraud.
Again: peace on you people, those of you who are interested in spreading the word about the origin and CENTRAL TENET of the ghg scam: CALCULATING TEMPERATURES OF GASES,
NOT USING GAS LAW,
and going straight to the Stefan-Boltzmann processing without accounting for the compression warming
intrinsic to – what? Intrinsic to compressible phase fluids.
Joseph forgive me again. I guess a lotta your guys here reading about the scam and discussing it with you ask themselves, wtF I’m saying, that has ANYTHING to do, with radiant ghg effect.
Listen to me carefully and watch how this works, dear readers.
Have the FRAUDBILLY you are spitting into the face of explain to you precisely
how much more light warms and leaves planet Earth,
for every percent otherwise available warming radiation,
the green house gases keep from reaching and warming, and leaving Earth.
Tell them – no, mufus, this is not a mistake on my part,
you told me,
the class gases,
refracting 20% of the otherwise available radiant energy
away from Earth so it never joins the physical or mathematical processes of the planet,
have made the planet’s temperature rise, 33 degrees, by doing so.
In existing you claim, they simultaneously remove 20% of all available warming spectra
and yet that for each % removed, for each % less radiant energy arriving,
additional radiant spectra leak out of Earth: such that when 25,000 ppm water and 400 ppm CO2,
stop 20% of all radiant spectra from becoming part of Earth’s systems
they simultaneously make enough light leak out of the planet that the overall planetary temperature
goes up by 33 degrees.
Tell them to account that to you: and that you’re not interested in anything at this point but RADIANT GREEN HOUSE GAS WARMING: when the GHGs stop 20%
of all radiant energy from arriving,
how much more radiant energy leaves,
for each percent less arriving,
such that 20% less radiant energy radiating in,
creates sufficient radiant energy leaving,
that temperature rises, by 33 degrees.
————————————————–
I’m sometimes guilty of believing that people are going to just naturally make the mental connects I make, when I start talking about what’s apparently off topic, Joseph. Because I don’t believe people are stupid.
But here again, I started out discussing my thoughts on your blog, and I haven’t made any connection to the radiant arguments I see you and others discussing and for which the thread’s named.
If you’re looking for a way to simply smash your heel into the entire gaggle of frauds’ noses, simply order them to explain to you how much more energy radiates out,
for every percent less energy, radiating in.
Don’t do the work for them, and don’t be baited by them saying, ”oH, yew ain’t no buh LeeVuR soe yew cain’t hardly noe nuthin bowt these heeyur… clime it isms.”
Just firm up like a teacher who’s caught Johnny smearing a booger in Janie’s ponytail and DEMAND they explain to YOU – and each other,
how much more light radiates out,
for every percent light, that never arrives.
Don’t let them drag you around by the vocabulary they use. Don’t let them change the subject and start claiming you don’t understand about the Backerdistical Con Stunt.
Another thing that hammers it home to the crowd is when you tell their experts, ”tell me the answer or you’re the fraud barking fake I’m telling these people, I can show them, you ARE. You’re a FAKE.”
When you hone in on these violation of conservation of energy problems all inversion scams have,
stiffen up and get very authoritarian, and very inflexible. Tell them: to their face: you answer me or you’re the fake I told these people you are when I got here and saw you barking about the Magical Heater. HOW much MORE light RADIATES OUT of a ROCK,
that has 20% less LIGHT radiate IN? *ANSWER ME,* FAKE.”
There are times, when – what you do, is you simply slap them all out of their mutually induced, delusion of superiority, by singling out any and all of them, at any given moment, and telling him he’s a fraud and a fake, and that ”you’re about to ”show all these people” you’re one.”
And then go right back, to these fundamentals. If they want to talk about radiant Backerdisms, then demand they talk about them to you in mathematically concise, checkable, amounts, *that* – listen to me – a.n.y.o.n.e. including little children and their wives should they look over their shoulders – could see clearly: make them afraid for anyone to see their screen, and the ludicrous bullshit they ”I caught your stupid #*& barking” when you ”thought no one could see you.”
Catch them like that, and go directly to the most fundamental conservation of energy violation you can identify, and in this case, the violation of conservation of energy is that they’re claiming some light refracting insulation,
makes 20% of available warming firelight,
never warm a rock,
and that every time a percent less light goes into the rock
an additional percent plus the percent that never radiates in, comes radiating out.
Just put it, JUST that simply and then go over to ”and another thing: why can’t any of you hicks calculate the temperature of the planetary atmosphere correctly? We know what the real temperature is, it’s the temperature of the International Standard, we all calibrate – ultimately, every machine or measurement we make regarding production of heat, against
Tell them saying ”We know those mathematics are correct, so why does your Church, – capitalize their ‘Church’ every time you mention it, and refer to their ”beliefs” as ”doctrines” because everybody’s gonna see when you call them with that ”how much more radiates out, each time less radiates in? question.
Now listen this is like telling your wife or girlfriend that she’s a better lover than her sister. They’re gonna start to buck and try to throw you out of the saddle like a bull that knows if it doesn’t get you off, there’s failure RIGHT there staring them in the face.
So when this happens you’ve gotta be ready.
Mock them
and taunt them at that point,
for not being able to name for you
the Law of thermodynamcs responsible for calculating temperatures of gases and of course the Atmosphere.
Then just cut right over to ”Oh that’s right you hicks don’t bother using Gas law when you fraudulently mis-‘calculate’ the temperature of the Atmosphere,
attempting to get by with fraudulent Stefan-Boltzmann massage,
so YOU and your LEADERS can’t CALCULATE the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET’S ATMOSPHERE.
Then you tell them – what’s the reason there even has to BE a gas law?
They’ll just be like OmFGaia….OmFGaia… and you just KEEP rolling them by saying ”to account for what?” Taunt them.
And say ”To account for the compression warming intrinsic to PRESSURE and GASES.
They’ll try for awhile, sometimes a forum of them will last three days. Usually for me by the time 18 to 36 hours are up they’re all just too stunned to even speak any more because you just keep going back over, and over, and over,
the violations of conservation of energy that are so obvious: cold bath is a heater, insulation in the bath stopping 20% of all energy from radiating in, makes more and more radiate out, each time it makes another percent not radiate IN,
this is devastating to them because YOU, can keep going ALL DAY LONG, if you NEVER leave that BASE that is your FIRST big PROOF you’re RIGHT: the fact that even their LEADERS –
can’t
match
the calculation
of the global atmosphere
that is so obviously correct: the International Standard Atmosphere.
If they can’t match that then- they’re wrong from that point forth and you never have to even nod to the doorman when you come in or go by.
You must understand that all their so-called ”wins” yesterday were based on them trying to cover for the frauds of political figures stealing the world blind: they only get paid, most of these you argue with and certainly the ones who cheerlead the ones who get paid, in the joy of mocking you and acting superior.
When you walk in armed with what I have told you guys about how the fraud’s VERY FIRST FAKERY is this FAKE gas ”calculation” ‘technique’ – it’s simply PURE fraud to REFUSE to USE GAS LAW –
what happens is that – these people aren’t taught to refer to any ‘gas law’. So YOU say – the GAS LAW that BRIDGES and UNIFIES the FOUR BEFORE it, WHAT is the NAME of it?
Mock them over and over about not knowing anything about gas law but DO it – by simply laying out everything I’m telling you the reader about how James Hansen claimed that government computers are so fast they can calculate the temperatures of COMPRESSIBLE PHASE material using the PROCESS for INCOMPRESSIBLE phase or known-density phase matter.
When doing the radiation processing related to gases, you DO ultimately, refer to and use, Stefan-Boltzmann process, but what the FRAUD involves,
is NOT
using the GAS LAW required to figure out that ‘hydrostatic condition’ I told you about.
And when you simply freeze them all up mocking them RIGHT up FRONT for not even KNOWING the NAME of the GAS LAW governing what they claim,
lemme tell ya, they sit right the f*** up and you can practically HEAR their hands sweating around their mouse – then under their arms, their hair – as they realize – you just called their fucking bluff.
When you say that, you have to be able to simply and reliably explain that – that 33 degree shortfall hasn’t got ONE effing THING to DO with ANY green house gas, at ALL, it’s the COMPRESSION warming
the gas law
has to account for
and if it’s not done for our atmosphere
THEY SHOW UP TO THE GAME ALREADY with a WRONG CALCULATION.
FIRST pea out of the DISH: WRONG answer on the global atmospheric temperature.
HOW can we make THEIR answer,
match the RIGHT answer?
Use Gas Law in the mathematical process describing temperature and pressure and all this –
and that FRAUD-CREATED 33 DEGREES VANISHES. *SNaP* like THAT.
Another extremely valuable tool in simply shaming these fuc**g frauds is to ORDER them: SHOW ME that ”other time” in ALLLLLLLLLL thermodynamics when a COLD nitrogen bath, made a light warmed rock WARMER
than if there were no cold bath conduction chilling the light warmed rock. ”SHOW ME. WE’LL all WAIT HERE.” Tell em ”Take your time, you’re gonna need it. COLD nitrogen bath conduction scrubbing rock, makes rock WARMER than if rock had to RADIATE all the energy it took on, WITHOUT the COLD BATH CHILLING it.
So there is a VERY very REAL element to my mocking of the fraud’s radiant claims but I’m a professional class fraud BUSTER – or was as a kid, the rules are REAL simple: go to the VERY first detectable VIOLATION of mathematical/physical law,
and as I keep repeating to you guys who are – in fact discussing something governed by gas law – in conjuction with Stefan Boltzmann processing as well, but without the GAS LAW you can NOT achieve proper calculation of temperatures of gases –
and I don’t see you guys discuss gas law a lot because obviously – you guys aren’t really or haven’t really been, mostly, gas specialists.
Well, what you need to know is that the reason there has to BE a gas law function included in gas energy handling calculations. If you aren’t even fluent in discussing this, what chance do you have busting a GAS energy scam?
Ok? And then, you need to know the name of that law and be able to identify it by something other than name – just point out that it ‘bridges and unifies the four major gas laws that preceded it.’
It’s name, you need to know. – I mean people you’re all discussing gas energy here I’m not completely wrong to try to get this across to ya all even if it is off topic, I do apologize, I really do Joseph – it’s name is the Ideal Gas Law.
And you need to know it’s equation. PV (pressure times volume) = nRT (the n*umber of moles of gas or gas mix, times R, which is REAL important – times TEMPERATURE)
You need to know that R represents the average energy per mole, listed on the –
* * *this is also mandatory for you to learn, it’s just a few things, guys ** *
CHART: that COMPRISES * * *you gotta know this* * * – – the 2ND HALF of the LAW – – –
You need to know that the REASON NONE of them – even them that KNOW it’s a SCAM –
can BEAR DISCUSSION of ANY GAS LAW is because the EQUATION proves the relationship of pressure, and volume thus ultimately total mass involved, hence ultimately temperature arrived at when irradiated by a certain amount of light,
but ALSO – this is a hard part to memorize, – DO it – the CHART – the CHART specifically NAMES CO2 and Atmospheric Air,
and ASSIGNS CO2 laden mix, LESS ENERGY per MOLE:
the LAW MANDATES that AIR with CO2 ADDED
go DOWN in TEMPERATURE as a RESULT of that ADDITION.
So you need to know the GAS LAW their SCAM MUST LEAVE OUT in calculating gas temps,
DIRECTLY addresses their claims, in the EQUATION – taking into account PRESSURE related to TEMPERATURE – and the CHART, which is the OTHER half of that law, DIRECTLY FORBIDS CO2 doing anything but LOWERING the TEMPERATURE of AIR it’s mixed into.
When you’re able to clearly remember and recount this to others you can make them go look it up.
The chart is called ‘Gas Constant Chart on this Engineer’s Toolbox page, this is a partial chart:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/individual-universal-gas-constant-d_588.html
This ‘R’ is the factor where if there were truth to the fact CO2 addition can warm air, the LAW would be MANDATING it. But as you can all see: NOBODY associated with the FAKE CHURCH
wants ANYTHING TO DO with ANY mention of GAS LAW,
whether it be the EQUATION – which leads you to pointing out that Stefan-Boltzmann isn’t a process for ACCOUNTING the intrinsically fluid variability of mass/volume ratio in – COMPRESSIBLE phase matter.
Why do gases have a law for their temperature? Because Stefan-Boltzmann alone isn’t a process for accounting the intrinsic volume mass relationship of matter.
And what’s the mandatory error if someone TRIES to FRAUD their way through REFUSING to USE GAS LAW wherever it’s presence is necessary for accurate accounting of matter-energy relationships?
33 degrees.
33 degrees is the mandatory error on planet Earth,
should someone fraudulently claim to calculate global atmospheric temperature
and refuse
to admit and use gas law in their ‘processing’, and try to get by, with Stefan-Boltzman-only type fraud.
Again Stefan Boltzman is used in solving gas radiant energy problems but only when proper gas law has previously been used, in form of the ‘hydrostatic equation,’
in order to discover or solve for the ‘hydrostatic condition.’
If you can get this big ring of facts through your head, and do it with sufficient intellectual acumen that you can simply talk about the Gas Law, discuss it’s TWO parts, discuss what each of the factors in the equation are, – it’s real simple, it addresses that PRESSURE portion I told you about and which when UNACCOUNTED gives that infamous ”33 degrees” shortfall –
you’re a LOT better off because without discussing gas law in – GASES – you’re unable to discuss, a lot of what this is all about:
the laws, governing the temperatures, of gases.
And when you CAN kinda jump around on this sorta logjam of
1)the name of the law
2why you have to have it
3)the fact the International Standard Atmosphere MUST use it to get the right answer
4)the fact their ‘math’ CAN’T MATCH that
5)because their FAKERY STARTS with M.I.S.C.A.L.C.U.L.A.T.I.N.G. atmospheric temperature
6)giving a MANDATORY 33 degree ERROR
you’re already a long, LONG way down simply THRASHING – ANY forum of men who would dare argue with you because it’s EASY to CHECK
whether Stefan Boltzman calculation alone, delivers up that 33 degree error.
It’s easy to EXPOSE them- the ENTIRE F***G forum even of their WORLD’s best ‘experts’
u.n.a.b.l.e. to even d.i.s.c.u.s.s. with you, the a.c.t.u.a .l. laws and processes involved, in finding out the temperatures, of gases.
Do you know how many bunches of them I’ve waded into, sorted out the author of the book or whatever, the big Kahuna, and dared him to name the law governing the temperature of the atmosphere and had that FAKE lock up like a skateboard in a lagoon?
M.a.n.y.
Then when you start mocking them and mocking them USING the law itself, the CHART, they naturally jump to ANOTHER topic.
If they claim it’s about ”radiant transfer” then you IMMEDIATELY – just ORDER them to TELL you
”exactly how much more light radiates out of the planet every time the light refractive insulation makes less radiate into it?”
”Tell me now or you’re the fake I told everybody it would be so easy to prove you are.”
You can say this to a.n.y.o.n.e. and they will be so locked up you will – watch what I tell you- sit there and practically SEE them wiping the sweat off their mouse hand, unable to touch the keyboard, opening other tabs sitting there in glazed over, defeated, trance of the
just-busted fraud-barking dipshit.
It’s really key to breaking this down to something the NON sophists can openly mock them with.
You don’t need another hundred PhDs for this.
You need a hundred thousand plumbers and aircraft mechanics and administrators, daring them to answer the question ”how much more light leaks out of a rock, the magical insulation makes less light leak into? Tell me clearly now. How much more leaks out, every time the magic gas makes another percent less, leak in? If you don’t answer me you’re the thermodynamic law violating fraud barking hick I told everyone here you are, when I saw you going on about a cold nitrogen bath that’s a giant magic heater.”
It’s hard for them to rebound from this kind of thing. When you guys came over and chewed up those guys at that other website on that other fraud, there wasn’t much for me to do but sit back and let it take it’s course, but the thing about doing this the way I tell you is that it puts YOU in the driver’s seat educating people about what REALLY governs’ gas temperatures: GAS LAW.
Anyway it’s off to work on my wife’s house, and stop spamming you guys but I really wish you’d all consider what the reason is, that the people associated with this scam, simply demand you NOT discuss
the laws-of-physics violations,
always going in many different directions.
It REALLY bolsters YOUR case if you can point out that their claim is outright violation of Conservation of Energy in claiming a cold nitrogen bath heats the object it’s chilling,
then go STRAIGHT into explaining all about the Gas law accounting for the PRESSURE, and their Church’s MAIN calculations NOT even being able to MATCH International Atmospheric Standard
temperature – and how
as SOON as one ACCOUNTS for the COMPRESSION
it accounts for
E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.
the 33 degrees, they SWEAR to you ISN’T
FRAUD derived.
It’s derived from PURE fraud and you MUST insist from the FIRST WORD that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to calculate the temperature of the atmosphere PROPERLY
without USING properly processed gas law.
You have to get that shit out of the way RIGHT off because it’s the FOUNDATION
of the justification of claim,
there’s ANY kind of ”effect”.
It’s SIMPLY
DELIBERATELY,
fraudulently MIS-calculating
the temperature of the global Atmosphere
CREATING a NON existent, ”effect.”
And listen guys the more you study what I’m telling you about this, the MORE clearly you’re going to see how thoroughly EVERY word of ”the magic gais dun made the cold nitrugin bath, uh.. MAGIC HEEDUR!!”
is purest,
purest, fraud.
Peace guys.
Remember: be sure to sum up their ”RADIANT EFFECT” argument with ”tell me how many MORE PERCENT light RADIATE OUT from the SUN-WARMED ROCK,
each time the INSULATION
makes another percent LESS light radiate IN.”
You aren’t responsible for ”making their fraud palatable” by ”putting it into terms I like” or whatever the f***k some sophist FAKE tells you to make you start speaking thoughts he wants you to speak.
These people are con men and they are many of them, very socially misadjusted, uneducated people so it’s important you don’t let them think THEY tricked YOU,
by dragging YOU off into water so deep,
an observer COULDN’T TELL who WON.
Winning against a fraud is humiliating him and the BEST and really ONLY way to do it is find the very FIRST place in his story that fraud erupts and GO from THERE: over and over and over.
Because – they KNOW what you’re doing. You’re snitching them off to their fan-boys and girls RIGHT in front of their own faces – and THEY don’t LIKE it. So you’re obviously not gonna make friends with the frauds, and furthermore,
the un-knowing aren’t going to stick up for you either. You have to be capable of wading in there with that ”straightening you hillbillies’ bullshoot the f***k OUT” stick,
and leave, thoroughly assured that ANY 6TH grader who EVER watches you do that to them – they ARE going to be reading what you say later, YEARS from now, doing reports, etc – they WILL…
you MUST not despair that this ULTRA simple demolishment of them PAYS the BEST ODDS –
you need to leave assured that any 6th grader who reads it can understand,
and any other elementary schooler can see how THOROUGHLY you SHUT them the ____blank__ up, and with such EASE – NEVER cracking a BOOK –
this
discourages a government fraud movement.
The counter sophistry FEEDS the fraud.
Teaching CHILDREN a six or seven or eight step argument to ridicule and humiliate a teacher, can be done.
Just as I’ve done here. Be repeating how to get to the VERY first place they are WRONG –
then explaining WHERE that first error comes from – and INSISTING to everyone that – WITHOUT proper processing using GAS LAW, all their claims are VAPOR – and that when gas law IS properly used so INTERNATIONALLY known global temperature IS reached , and their FRAUD is GONE –
puts you in FIRM control of the thing
ONCE you LEARN how they JUMP AROUND changing the SUBJECT
and how to drag them RIGHT back into the shallow water where the kids can see,
the science darkening, FRAUDULENT SCAMMING, these government employees and various eco-wacko shit-heads, are drumming into their heads as being ”real science.”
The SAME way they DRUMMED it into their grand daddy’s and mom’s heads,
and their OWN daddy’s and moms’ heads,
and into THEIR heads, that – you guessed it – pot is just like heroin, worse for one than a methyl amphetamine addiction,
and that they have the
yew noe: ”Critical Research University Peer Review”
to prove it.
You are not going to save your own generation, your generation has been scammed and robbed, bilked and had liberty stolen in the TRiLLioNS just as previous were LIED to SCAMMED,
THREATENED,
MURDERED,
SHOT,
had their families torn apart,
placed in prisons till the DAY people DIED many times – over the
”Pot’s like Heroin”
Government employee GLOBAL chemistry and MEDICAL scam.
Your previous generation had to deal with overthrowing that and we’re only part way done with that government chemistry scam, designed to literally – LITERALLY rob you, steal you blind, and make you pay money to be taught how to say ‘thank you’ for criminalizing you
in a chemistry scam.
And now this generation is facing that chemistry scam
and
this one.
You need to learn about the law and laws that govern the Atmosphere this scam is built around, Those laws really ‘that’ law, is GAS LAW.
You need to be armed with the truth: not ‘tolerated usage of truth in safe places’ and not ‘you’re not allowed to utter that truth on this government installation.’
You need to understand about gas law and why it’s needed and you need to be able to talk about that: fluid and proficient, you need to then go on to precisely what happens if one should ignore gas law and claim to be processing gas temperatures WITHOUT using gas law at the proper junctures and going through the FRAUDULENT motion of using Stefan-Boltzmann processing alone.
What happens is that infamous 33 degree shortfall from something else you need to learn and read about, – the Standard Atmosphere. You need to be able to tell people without reservation that the Standard Atmosphere has not changed one bit since it was adopted as a physical and regulatory Standard now governing our entire combustion and other gas energy related space age.
When you are actually armed with understanding wtF is going on with the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS that GOVERNS something you aren’t going from reflex, arguing from ”permissible discussion” set for you by frauds, to the NEXT ”permissible discussion.”
When YOU – even if you’re a welder, even if you’re an ice cream salesman – open up on a buncha frauds telling everyone how and why there even has to be a law governing something,
what happens when you don’t USE that law,
how to REPAIR that 33 degree shortfall in the case of Earth’s temperature – start using properly processed gas law in ones’ mathematics –
there’s not a lot of arguing that can be done except for the frauds to declare that this isn’t about gas law. There are times when you’re gonna learn the things they exclaim are extremely illuminating to others, and you’ll learn to prefer certain tactics in demolishing these people using the proper attacks, for this kind of scam: inversion scams.
People are going to be extremely filled with anger at you but that just makes it more important to you to become ever more flexible in simply derailing them and going STRAIGHT to their thermodynamics laws violations – both in the extremely simplistic illustrations you KNOW will tip off children, that – these assholes are fakes, committing fraud –
but then you need to show the mental athleticism that they learn you’re no clown: and the way to prove this best is the way that attacks the fraud at it’s VERY FIRST POINT where it LEAVES proper SCIENCE.
And, sure enough of course this is ALSO where we see the FAKE term ‘green house gas effect’ invoked, to COVER – this DELIBERATE mis-application of thermodynamic law, deliberately omitting proper processing of gases – compressible phase material with COMPRESSIBLE PHASE LAW.
As you get older you’re going to yearn to be able to take complete control of these frauds and simply start rubbing their noses in the fact anyone can see they’re several intellectual floors short of a medium sized building.
You need to have someone trained in fraud busting, tell you how it’s best busted. I am, and i’m letting you all know that one of the things you MUST get good at is the stuff I’m describing above.
You can’t argue about the laws governing gases
when you’re completely illiterate in argument around gas LAWS.
Now – fortunately for you fraud busters, the Ideal Gas Law, actually perfects, it bridges and it unifies all the previous four major gas laws before it, and so your work is ALL that much easier.
One more trick. I have always noticed that some things go over better spoken kinda everyday speech-wise, and some are better kind of roared, strutted, and swaggered about, when you do it.
When you discuss the Ideal Gas Law and you link them to the Engineer’s Toolbox – you should – you should also DEMAND they SHOW you ”THEIR CHART,” ”showing how ANY CO2 EVER added to Standard Atmospheric Air, EVER did ANYTHING but LOWER it’s TEMPERATURE.”
You really need to kick this one into their teeth and just rake every inch of skin off of them using the fact that the Chart of Gas Constants, specifically points out and indeed mathematically MANDATES that CO2 mixed into air, LOWERS it’s temperature.
Take a lotta time on this one because it always takes the readers awhile to have it sink in how devastatingly lacking in ANY fucking answer, the FRAUDS are, REGARDING this FACT.
You can have TREMENDOUS success if you become articulate and able to discuss gas law, when you’re – hey go fuckin’ figure, fellas – discussing FRAUD or TRUTH, related to GAS LAW.
Because you have to not just be a snotty arrogant winner: you have to educate people who will NEVER have the time to be able to study all you’ve studied and you’ve got to show those UNEDUCATED MILLIONS and THOUSANDS and ok hundreds who come by, and read what you write, that – they can argue with these bastards. They can because you can. The readers seeing you really DO know all about gas law – their ain’t much to it, fellas, so don’t melt down – they’re ALSO gonna see that not ONE single SOUL among the FRAUDS,
typically
can even NAME the gas law – governing all these GAS energy, gas LAW GOVERNED, claims.
It’s very, very important to each and every one of you who hope to have ANY feelings of personal competency in simply knocking a.n.y. defender of this on the planet, RIGHT out
with a quick and authoritative dissertation on – ‘something’ – it’s VERY important you realize that inversion fraud has a specific track to derailing it instantly and permanently. It’s for you the discoverer of it to trace back to the v.e.r.y. first thermodynamic/mathematical violations, and just start demolishing it ALL, from RIGHT there.
* Watch what I tell you *
Any other tack,
and you are perpetuating the fraud.
You might want to have some specialty. Inversion frauds depend on this and keeping you on that – for days, weeks, around and around – and NOT going RIGHT away to the FIRST proof they can’t even fucking count, and the first error in their scam is that ”non usage of gas law in claimed computation of gas temperatures.”
It leads INSTANTLY to the great altar of their sacrifice of scientific integrity, CLAIM there is some kind of ”green house effect.”
No cold gas bath is a heater.
No insulation mixed into said cold bath, functioning as a light blocking agent and simultaneous phase change refrigerant for both the object in the bath, AND the bath, heats them.
Every single word of this scam is BASEST fraud and as you can all see, I have described precisely where the very first fraudulent accounting of energy happens in this SCAM and I’ve told you how it’s remedied: motherfuckers are supposed to use the right phase-of-matter LAW, and in the proper steps, for calculating temperature of matter of specific phase: in this case compressible phase material is being ‘calculated’ by DELIBERATELY OMITTING the LAW addressing compressible phase matter’s specific, intrinsic physical characteristics.
NONE of it is true. In fact I started this second post today with the reminder to you that there’s a way to cut through all their RADIATION type bullshit, so everyone who isn’t educated enough to play the game,
knows who’s winning the fuckin’ game.
YOU are. And you prove this to them by simply DEMANDING they TELL you in CLEAR terms,
‘how much more light radiates out of the planet,
for every percent LESS light, the magical gassiness,
lets radiate IN?
Less goes IN,
MORE comes OUT, tell me NOW: HOW much MORE comes OUT, each time another percent LESS,
goes IN?
Be sorta arrogant and scoffing with this and don’t apologize, and outright accuse them of scurrying around like a rat, from a woman with a broom: tell them, ”I understand clearly, you told me, the insulation making 20% less light radiate IN
is making that 20% PLUS some that never goes in,
radiate OUT. MY QUESTION is HOW much more energy radiates OUT
each time the green house gases cause another percent energy to radiate IN?
You have to be very sure of yourself because people, when caught out in the open with the whole thing so EASILY reduced to scorned stupidity, go into crafty, time-buying, denial. And they’ll go around and around but you make them TELL you,
for every percent energy that does NOT radiate IN
because the magical gassiness refracted it to space,
how much MORE radiates OUT? And where is it coming from?”
They’ll claim ”yew doan’t noe, yew ain’t smart” but it’s ALL they’ve got and this goes on awhile, but don’t you EVER let them off the hook about understanding their ”radiant transfer” situation.
Cold insulation makes less light go into a light warmed rock,
they claim that light not going in,
makes the rock 33 degrees warmer,
and that if you put more insulation in the bath,
so less light gets to the rock and warms it,
more light will warm the rock and leave it.
Demand they explain that to you in clear and concise terms until they fold, it’s just that simple. There’s no standing up to this argument about their ”radiant warming” so you need to be CRYSTAL clear that – their VIOLATION of CONSERVATION of ENERGY – is CRYSTAL clear.
Make it clear in your speech that – this isn’t just obvious to you, and the LUNK-HEADS you’re revealing as scum-sucking, fraud-barking math molesters and pseudo-scientific maggots,
but to the dozens, scores,
hundreds
who are coming by to read how you’re laying them open,
and who never say a word about what they saw you doing – there.
Remind them that everyone is seeing their obvious, flagrant violation of Conservation of Energy, and go over it repeatedly as well in your various fraud bustings, that a CHILD can easily see it’s a violation of Conservation of Energy.
Frauds despise it when you mention that you can make children contempt their stupidity.
I bid you all again the very best and happiest fraud busting of your lives. I’m telling you all this
because I want you to read it, absorb it, and arm the young people – and the adults of your world – with what I’m telling you.
Make it wide and common knowledge that you don’t need a degree in this or that,
to defeat this flagrant
pseudoscientific fakery,
All you need is to just know the fundamentals of gas law
and gas thermodynamics.
And this brings to bear yet another arrow in your fraud busting gear: mock them at why ”your handlers” won’t let you learn about gas law. Why don’t they teach you anything about gas law.”
Tell them outright, ”because they know you’re gullible hicks, they educated you to be those, in the same chair they programmed your grandpa to nod that oh yeah, that pot,
is just like heroin; worse for him than a methyl amphetamine addiction,
and that they had the critical scientific peer review to put him in prison,
for
”denying the science.”
The final punch line to this one is that ”The reason they keep you too stupid to even name the law governing what you’re claiming, is because the gas law GOVERNING atmospheric and gas termperatures forbids your FAKERY not just in the equation,
where it proves itself capable of dealing with pressure, volume, mass, etc – which Stefan-Boltzmann isn’t a process for, and doesn’t provide process for –
but also in the # # SECOND PART of the LAW # # the CHART of Gas Energy Constants.
Link to that chart a lot
and ask the frauds in front of other readers
”why their Church is teaching them CO2 can warm air when the law right there specifically, mathematically MANDATES that addition of CO2 to ANY volume of air, MUST lower it’s temperature?”
You kinda gotta know what makes the whole place just go quiet as a fucking mouse, and that’s one of them.
Taunt them and DARE them and tell them they had BETTER SHOW YOU their OWN CHART of LAW decreeing that CO2 holds more energy than Air, and it’s addition TO air, can WARM it because the REAL Chart
states CLEARLY: their Church is violating thermodynamic law,
JUST in the CLAIM
that adding CO2,
to Standard air mix,
can warm it.
*THE LAW
GOVERNING that MATTER
has a CHART,
assigning CO2 the LESSER energy constant.*
You need to flesh that all out in your OWN terms obviously
but there’s only a certain number of ways to saying anything from ”Welcome to United” to ”Mann Overboard!” so don’t try to be endlessly creative – except in your capacity to simply BEWILDER the entire GROUP
with GAS LAW RELATED FACT
and
observation,
after GAS LAW related
fact & observation.
Then of course you start going back and forth with the ”show me the cold bath that heated an object,” routine – which of course they CAN’T.
Again.
And you need to tell them that
TILL THEY DO
they’re just the bunch of hicks whose Church’s so-called ”best scientific minds”
can’t even properly calculate the temperature of the Global Atmosphere right.
Ok now I promise to leave you all in peace to read this and hopefully, investigate what I’m telling you.
Remember these words: Engineer’s Toolbox.
This will remind you where to find the ”Chart of Gas Constants”
which is the 2nd half of the
LAW
governing gas hence Atmospheric temperatures.
The Law has two parts,
The Law unifies and abridges the FOUR MAJOR GAS LAWS PRECEDING IT,
The Law REFUTES the FRAUD, TWO DISTINCTLY SEPARATE, DIFFERENT WAYS.
The equation, PV = nRT, exists, to ACCOUNT for PRESSURE (PV is ‘Pressure times Volume)
and the reason their Church can’t calculate gas temps right is they don’t account for PRESSURE,
and then in the SECOND SIDE of the LAW,
there’s a specific chart, singling out CO2 vs Air,
assigning CO2, the LOWER ENERGY Constant:
meaning any time CO2 is added to Air, the LAW GOVERNING THAT MANDATES the CO2’s presence, LOWERS the temperature of the MIX.
A final word of advice on using gas law to demolish fraud barking hicks.
Actively train yourself to chase them down BOTH paths with the LAW.
This brings back up (for you) OVER and OVER the fact that they don’t know a F&***G thing about their even BEING a LAW for this –
BECAUSE- THEY’RE being kept in the DARK,
because to TEACH them the LAW governing the Atmosphere’s temperature,
would be to SHOW them that the LAW is necessary, taking care of the PRESSURE or COMPRESSION warming element of gas temperature calculation,
AND
it forbids CO2 addition
resulting in a warmer atmospheric gas mix.
I realize that I am kinda dropping a lot of things on you guys at one time. But I do have a valid point in asserting to you all that – there’s a reason, you never hear a PEEP from these people about GAS LAW and the fact there HAS to BE one.
And, of course the very NEXUS of the scam’s original version is that – GAS LAW is deliberately OMITTED in pseudo-calculation of Earth’s and other planets’ global atmospheric temperatures,
SPECIFICALLY to CREATE this ERRONEOUS ARTIFACT – in Earth’s case, the now infamous ”33 degrees of warming”
alleged to be because of ”green house gases”
when in fact this 33 degree ERROR
is simply the deliberate, intentional REFUSAL to ACCOUNT for the compression warming
intrinsic to temperatures of gases.
The INSTANT and REPEATED reference to gas law by yourself,
puts you in position to cut their bullshit off RIGHT there
at the VERY first ERROR.
Once you have asserted the correct facts, you are fully within your rights to simply tell any of them, at any time, ”you go back and get some mathematics that match those used in arriving at the International Standard Atmosphere. Until you do that, you’re just so stupid you can’t even calculate the temperature of our OWN global atmosphere right – much less Venus’ or Mars, or wherever.”
This finally brings up Venus.
They do the identical thing with Venus, when in fact, the temperature of Venus is RIGHT on the MONEY where the Gas Law mandates those temperatures be, at those pressures, with that amount of sunlight.
When you have all this straight regarding Earth, try to be able to extend what I’m telling you to include the temperature on Venus as well because Venus is of course the FRAUDS’ Mother Ship and Icon of Magical Gassiness.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
All of you need to read this page, and you also, if you’re interested in discussing Atmospheric energy, need to kinda pore through this man’s writings and observations on Atmospheric temperatures.
The man is some kind of science/science fiction writer and a physicist who noted some years ago that the entire claim of there being a ”green house effect on Venus” is simply falsehood.
His name is Harry Huffman and I’ve read through all of his work regarding gases and I haven’t found any flaws in what he says about them and the solving of their mass/energy relationships.
You need to understand, why no one in the Magic Gas Brigade, will E.V.E.R. MENTION G.A.S. LAW, and your understanding needs to be heavily weighted toward being able to discuss all this stuff very clearly in front of a lot of people.
There are many many people who understand the truths related to this scam intuitively because they take REAL
GASL LAW-RELATED courses: courses like Welding: courses like S.C.U.B.A. diving. Courses like piloting an aircraft, and courses like the biology of creatures that live in water.
The GOAL of the Magic Gas Brigade is to KEEP this SCAM’s PARTICULARS, as EXCLUSIVE and OUT of the MAINSTREAM as POSSIBLE.
They KNOW that the MORE people weigh in, the more OBVIOUS it is, they’re barking FRAUD.
So – whether you guys know it or not your job isn’t to be as sophisticated as possible but your job is actually to teach the welders of the world,
how to teach their own kid,
to mock a government employee to scorn, RIGHT there in class; and the BEST way for you to do that is to simplify, simply, simply, and CUT the frauds off RIGHT there – AT the VERY FIRST PLACE
their DIALOGUE
starts DEPENDING on you, the Welder, the S.C.U.B.A. diver’s, the guy’s kid –
SWALLOWING FRAUDULENT CLAIMS.
THAT PLACE
is in the mis-calculation of global atmospheric temperature, and of gas temperatures in general, using Stefan-Boltzmann alone, instead of using the actual Gas Law written to help quantify these matter/energy relationships properly.
If you can train yourself to FOCUS on this you’re gonna be very very surprised how swiftly you can entirely shut out an entire forum of those effing frauds.
And in fact if you think I’m exaggerating this, bear in mind that the entire FIELD of believers in this shit, had their reputations TRASHED NOT just when they were all caught REPEATEDLY barking fraudulent bullshit,
but when they actively went on the attack, SUPPRESSING ANYONE EVEN MENTIONING THE WAYS, this shit VIOLATES THERMODYNAMIC LAW(S).
The reasons are now – obviously to you guys, clear, and hopefully MORE clear after my hours of typing, and Joseph’s having to wonder if I’ll ever s.t.F.u.
I will guys, I promise. But it’s just important that – you guys, the Slayers proper, are THE SPEARHEAD against these people.
And I’ll bet there’s not a single one among ya who were actually raised, in the professional field, of BUSTING chemistry frauds.
I was.
And I’ve waited respectfully many years as you guys all gave it your best go, I’ve given it mine, but at some point I think it becomes kinda important for me to explain to you all, what I know about this,
how it is I came to know it, and just basically, why I’m even interested in this.
I hope I’ve explained all of that, well enough that it satisfies you all.
I don’t really feel like I have the energy to run a blog and go around playing chase with these fraudulent assholes any more, I’m old now and came into busting this scam, on the back end of having worked in busting several other fraudulent chemistry scams online, before the Magic Gas Fraud took off like all thievery arranged by government employees.
It’s really important that you understand what I’m saying to you when I tell you that * you trying to devise ever more sophisticated proofs against this, IS THE SCAM THEY WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN. KEEPING YOU TALKING ABOUT IT
IS THE UNDERLYING BASES FOR EXISTENCE OF THE FRAUD: MAKING YOU TALK ABOUT IT
IS
THE
PLAN.
Making you LEAVE proper fraud busting protocol – find the very first incidence of fraud in the narrative and demolish it from there – IS THE PROTOCOL for THEM.
Their entire JOB involves MAKING YOU TALK about EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN
so they can continually tell you that you haven’t thought about it long and hard enough.. and another government grants/pay cycle goes by and you just keep talkin.
You REAL goal should be to expose them as frauds so as wide and ultimately, uneducated an audience as possible, can see CLEARLY – not just that these people are WRONG – but that they can MOCK them and do so with the contemptuous impunity someone mocking a FRAUD,
ought to be able to mock them in.
These people are like the government employees who enslaved the entire inhabitants of the world to the ”pot’s like heroin” scam. They don’t HAVE a conscience, they depend on YOU having one, they can MANIPULATE.
You are NOT dealing with harmless, well meaning ”sciencie” types. You are dealing with the V.E.R.Y. same P.E.O.P.L.E.
who have ruined HOW many – seriously, how many?? lives, with that ”Pot’s like Heroin, worse for you than Methyl Amphetamine” scam.
Think of the children, the adults, the men, the women, the black people, the brown people, singled out, assaulted, robbed, and made to pay entire YEARS of their CHILDREN’S SURVIVAL monies on ”counseling’ for ‘not realizing pot is like heroin’.
This is serious business and the more we blunt this as early as possible, the less suffering by people after we’re gone, who have no IDEA how this scam all KICKS OFF.
We must tell the world how this scam is processed, and where its’ origins lie
Joseph, you guys – you’re the Slayers. I know you must not have many professional grade fraud busters among you because you guys proceed forth like honest men, and fraud busting requires you be some exceptionally savvy, and difficult to manipulate people.
You gotta be honest but you gotta be shrewd as a freakin horse trader because you are arguing FOR people who haven’t been born. They’re gonna wanna develop arguments to what obviously seems like fraud but they can’t pin it down.
I’m telling you all I know about how to defeat these inversion frauds because I happen to have been iinvolved in fraud busting as a kid, and the parameters for actually STOPPING them from bringing their fraud up again,
aren’t the same ones,
for just defeating them and ‘showing them you are smart.’
When you’re comparing intellectual penises with these assholes, that’s what they WANT.
They WANT you to spend weeks, months, YEARS figuring it out.
They DON’T want you mocking them to their faces that they are telling stories so acutely, transparently fraudulent and in violation of Conservation of Energy (I think that’s the first time I’ve actually properly capitalized that phrase, if such capitalization is actually legit)
that you can show a child. THEIR child. THEIR wife, if she or the kid should look over their shoulder, and see the ludicrous shit they’re saying.
Again Happy Holidays Slayers. I salute you Joseph and your, and the other Slayers’ efforts.
Do not let the thousands of characters I have typed into this machine, go to waste. Learn how to argue these points, in terms that involve you
teaching the world,
where GAS LAW is left OUT to create their scam temperature calculations,
and where Stefan-Boltzman FRAUD is claimed to be able to be used in substitution for properly processed gas thermodynamics.
These people specialize in creating a NEED in you to be perceived as ‘smart like them.’ They’re NOT smart: they’re FRAUDS and that’s just pure criminality posing as honesty.
What you – all of you who can master it – need to do, is learn to spread the word the whole thing’s a fraud, very much the way I’m telling you. Joseph Postma can not do this all for you. You shouldn’t be AFRAID of discussing gas law as I’ve outlined it’s application to you, so that you can educate people about the REAL fundamentals of gases and their temperatures, and how that’s all sorted out.
Anyway. Now I go the way of all the men whose wives own a second home in the country: out in the yard, to do some Honey Dew work: Honey Do this, Honey Do that, Honey, I bought a new car, we’re gonna have to turn up the production on my properties a little bit so we can pay for it, and that means you, going outside and getting to work.
Which I’m doing, right now.
Adieu, chaps. Remember: don’t let the bastards grind you down.
That post was ridiculously long. (^_^)
I have just asked a ”how does a cold photon know it is a cold photon” guy over there,
”How do the photons know not to thermalise when being exchanged at equilibrium”, that is to the Tonyb fella, and his how do cold photons know they are cold sophistry.
They “know” because they are a frequency! WTF is wrong with these goblins!?
Are they Joe ?.
I read that the science name for radiation is a resonance, now i know that means frequency but is correct terminology, doesn’t resonance hem them in more, ”resonant wave” what do you think, photons of a resonant wave, what do think ?.
Did i use it here correctly….
Paul you only ever have in-flight photons in the chamber they never stop, a minute bit of free flux yet to impinge and replace, photons containing a fraction of the radiation’s resonance from the warmer block.
The thermal resonance of both blocks are near identical if you make the temperature differential 1 kelvin only, all outward emitted fluxes replace all outward fluxes it really is that simple, the blocks are virtually identical a 0.3% temperature differential the chamber back ground is 0 kelvin., [magically].
A is replacing B’s emission, and B is replacing A’s emission, at the same time, virtually instant, however B’s emission and Only B’s s radiating resonance contains some slightly more curried up photons that thermalise.
Gary lower frequency energy can’t enter into a region of an object already leaking energy of that frequency concentration, or greater.
However what that energy does do, is stop energy from leaking out of the object it approaches and strikes.
Energy migration through a solid object happens because of energy’s propensity to operate on a principle directly comparable to a pressure gradient. If you have two batteries, one full charge, one a little under full, they both equalize out to about 95% charge apiece, instead of the ‘one full, one at 90%’ or whatever levels they’re first taken into consideration at.
Energy leaks.
It leaks, because electrons, contacting each other, leak energy to each other in that kinda legendary equalization process that ultimately, arrives at the thermodynamical laws referring to entropy.
Entropy involves the fact that forces, where they can – where there’s a path – equalize. And when a photon strikes matter, the electron that entangles that photon, also has many other electrons, very nearby it – ya know how gases expand 800 + or – times in general when they form, and when the substances the gases are made of cool they contract – and they then become …. liquid, or solid, just classically speaking,
– these electrons which had been free to re-alighn themselves and avoid each other as gases, in these idealized spherical molecular displacements,
they’re now jammed into a space, 800 times smaller hence our referencing lattices in solids.
Well – when your local photon smashes into an exposed facet of a solid object that photon is basically a quantity of charge: energy.
And every single electron around that initially entangling electron, that has lower energy concentrations ringing around with it – when it gets right there beside the MORE charged electron,
the light leaks over to the LESS charged one – at the speed of light, of course, and the amount that leaks over, is a function of
how close they actually come,
&
the angles at which then close on each others’ paths.
Generally. You’re talking in fact Gary if you’ll remember, about the very same effect, as when some pulse runs down a wire, and as it goes down the wire,
wires nearby pick up, bleed down that pulsed signal, till – ostensibly – they’re all equal. Obviously in real life it’s a bit more involved but it’s most certainly that same, ”90 degree bump to the side” effect we discover everywhere we use electricity and electronics.
These entities engage in this ”90 degree displacement to the side” of other charged entities, due to the fact they all are embued with the effect characteristic known as ‘spin.’
Electrons and photons entangle related to these spin identities due to this spinning spheres mathematic, that defines all energy mathematics related to energy in motion.
When the higher frequency, the more concetrated energy photon slams into an object and gets entangled,
before you can even spit and reach for your switch blade, the other electrons are already sapping energy off this locus of energy charge. The INSTANT it resonates on one of the electrons and ceases rebounding, re-aligning itself in process of that ’90 degree to the side deflection’ characteristic energy exhibits – when it can’t spin away through mutual-force repulsion, like magnets do, because it’s held much more fast and unable to re-align itself upon coming into resonance with the first electron it encounters positioned to trap it, to entangle it –
the other electrons on the surface layer are flying by there pinging against the path of that first electron and they each of them, leach off some of the energy the charged electron has, until – once again, they’re all equally charged. At this point, they don’t hand off energy to each other because there’s no unction, there’s no inequality, to create any gradient for leakage.
In school you’re always having people remind you of that atrocious comparison, ”it’s like you have a tank of water and it floods, outside the tank. Even if a hole forms in the tank under the water there if the two water levels are identical, there’ll be (effectively, hypothetically) zero pressure differential, so THAT aspect of leakage creation isn’t part of any leakage that does occur.
It’s just like this when electrons have entangled light and are handing off the electromagnetic energy that light comprises to each other, through this leakage.
Once all have equal charge, they aren’t ‘constantly handing energy off to each other’ in some kind of throughput mechanism, that all equals out so it’s an apparent, and mathematical zero-flow energy mechanic.
No. Each has resonated some energy and since none has a higher concentration of energy they aren’t handing off.
See what I’m saying? There has to be pressure for flow to occur, in energy mechanics, there has to be a pressure differential for there to be flow, too: just having energy pressure can’t create flow,
the same way having pressure on two ends of a tug o war game. Pressure on the ends of the rope,
is NOT equal, to the rope moving ‘so faist thim mathumatdicks cain’t evun keap up, YaW!’ as per
magic gas fraud.
No, equal pressure on both sides of the rope, means that centerline of tape strapped around the centerpoint, right over that line on the ground when the game begins, IS NOT MOVING.
When energy is being emitted from an object, the concentration of energy outside that object is the source of a differential there, as well. There’s energy in the object, there’s energy coming into the object from say, another end of an iron bar –
these electrons, are all compacted in this iron substance, this crystalline substance, and – as they hand energy off to each other, eventually there’s a distribution of energy and some’s leaking out of the other end of the bar,
down on this end where we’re looking at it and measuring whether there’s as HIGH a concentration of energy out in free space, slamming into the exposed facets of those end molecules’ electrons.
Ok – if there’s energy, concentrated enough that it’s equal to that concentration in the iron bar, energy stops leaking out.
Oh yes, it does, because the energy coming to that very last electron, from within the iron bar, doesnt’ have any place, for light to leak out, because there’s no pressure differential.
Remember the free, incoming electron, will simply rotate and bounce off if it’s not entangled with the electromagnetic moment of the electron it entangles on.
The people in my field, radiant communications and it’s associated electronic engineering, are the people who quantified each step of this relationship in energy hand-off, using microwave resonances.
Microwave is when the frequency of the energy disruptions you create are so fast, they don’t cling to material any more at all – you can fire them down a hollow pipe, and instead of being absorbed by this metal pipe as one generally expects – metal conducts electomagnetic energy and all this,
you have this effect where you can create these electromagnetic field disruptions and just let them leak out of an antenna: that’s radio, and when you get the frequencies so fast that the time a light-speed charge can move by the time you turn it off again, then back on – these wavelengths are so short that your’e literally using a tiny, tiny pin, the size of a sewing pin and shorter – a half inch, etc – as an antenna, on a radio.
That’s – that’s what it is. And when you fire it down a hollow pipe, this pipe’s called your ”waveguide” now. And you can place instrumentation all along the path of this radio wave you propagate down the pipe there and figure out,
EXACTLY what’s happening,
because where there’s nothing being detected by your instruments, energy isn’t there,
and where you ARE detecting it, energy IS there.
Ok well after WWII there were a lotta people who’d been exposed to high technology and all these men educated in physical sciences, wanted to get college degrees, and of course governments were always looking to fund research on making their communications more secure, more reliable, more long reached, more this, less that… and a LOT of research was DONE in microwave,
because microwave,
is also, – same frequencies, kids –
radar,
motherf****rs and
radar,
is how you stop your local nuclear bomber,
from coming over and ruining your party.
So after wwii you had RADAR being investigated in every single aspect any of you and all of you can imagine,
and you also had microwave communications proper, being investigated to try to make that end of the world a more prosperous, fantastic place.
And there were just scores of grants handed out in universities w.o.r.l.d.w.i.d.e. and with the number of the professors all being military men,
and SO many of these men being strongly aligned to patriotic ends due to the competing global political powers being on the back end of WWII,
these universities where most of this research was being done,
leaked
like a sieve.
They leaked, like sieves, because there were telephones everywhere, now. There was all kinds of extra military radio equipment and amateur radio equipment and you just can not stop, adventurous young men and women from trying to contact each other and talk shop about interesting scientific research.
And so what happened was men and women fired thousands of shots of microwave/radar frequency energy down these waveguides, and they figured out that it’s indeed, exactly what the mathematics say, about energy flow. Where the mathematics say there is zero flow, there is zero flow:
because the mathematics,
regarding energy flow,
are predicated on the concept of concentration differential – pressure, kids – and that’s all there is to it.
So that’s what the real energy transfer mechanism is: when there is energy concentration slamming into a spot, energy of that frequency and below will not emit.
It will not be absorbed, either and it bounces off.
And in this way they offset each others’ mathematic precisely,
and since the electronic regions where light COULD entangle are full, and are ostensibly full because there is presently energy supply to account for that –
free photons can NOT slam their way into that lattice of electrons which are already charged with energy and can not simply deflect,
with the massless ease,
the incoming free photon can deflect.
If this is the aspect of light entering and leaving things you’re discussing, there’s zero question, of what’s happening because the microwave and radar people after WWII sorted all this out – and hey there’s actually a kinda test question REGARDING this VERY matter in radiant communications.
The question is why isn’t there a single, well known paper, with a couple of peoples’ names, who seemed to simply soar above everyone else in fleshing out all this matter-energy handling,
verifying that the mathematics associated with energy, and energy conservation/transfer etc – are in fact, correct out to as far as anyone would care to try to take them?
The answer to that IS: after WWII universities and private labs too, worldwide, leaked like sieves, and no one could attain any competitive advantage in uncovering the more minute energy handling and transfer characteristics of matter, to the point they could make a name for themselves. Everytime something was discovered anywhere on earth of any import, within just a few minutes at times, people on the other side of the planet could know: and so information about physics flowed like water between all these universities, due to TWO factors intrinsic to humans:
young students can’t be stopped from gossiping,
professors were often highly politically motivated and leaked to THEIR sponsors/friends/political handlers, etc.
We know for a fact from having the mathematics and every other pressure concentrated related entity, that when there IS no charge differential, there IS no FLOW.
This is not a negotiation. This is the mathematical process associated with energy transfer. If energy transfers there MUST be a reason, and in the wild, just your everyday energy gain/loss transaction,
any change, MUST be driven by – concentration differential. Otherwise there’s – again pardon the usage of the unusual word, ‘unction’ or incitement to flow.
That’s how that all goes, and that’s just not ever going to be gotten around.
Energy can’t push itself inside an object already charged to that concentration, because where pressure concentrations equalize, there’s no source for flow creation.
Free photons arriving from the outside can’t force their way in, because they operate as rotational, spherical, mathematical entities and they simply deflect on contact with like force: EM trapped, on those electrons, is the identical stuff that’s coming in from outside, from free space, having been emitted by something else.
Anyway I’m not trying to do anything except inform you that’s how we know, beyond any flickering shadow of doubt, precisely how energy is going into then leaving, surfaces of objects.
In the microwave research field they called these hollow tubes, these wave guides’ endpoints, ‘cavities’.
And this leads to the term ‘resonant cavities’ and a lot of others related to that particular aspect of the research, which I did not personally take part in. I simply studied it as part of my curriculum for understanding history of radiant energy, and mankind’s steps in uncovering it’s mechanics.
Energy flow is according to pressure gradient. This is especially true in solids where the electromagnetic energy is no longer free, no longer strictly bound by laws of energy class entities, but the energy acts in resonance with physical matter class entities, the electrons.
This is not hard. Energy only migrates when there is an energy concentration inequality.
Sorry Gary I said the wrong thing regarding the wrong question. I’m getting ready to go dig a darn irrigation ditch along one of my fence lines so karma got even with me for interfering in your conversation, – I gotta go dig this ditch lol.
Physical and Energetic entities in particle physics, follow the mathematics, and tend to occupy the geometries, of
spinning
spheres.
When people were founding the modern science of sub-atomic physics, they discovered what they learned often around universities, schools, and the students often got balls and compared them to their hypotheses, and it became rapidly clear at some point around the mid 1800s, that
over and over,
the actions of every sub-atomic entity and some above that level – gases are kinda notable for this – they act like spheres, and when you USE the mathematics of hypothetical spheres that spin on these entities found in nature,
you repeatedly,
come up right.
As in there is no question at all, what is going on, at that point. These entities are – all of em at the level of the atom – acting as
spinning
spherical
entities.
The geometries they occupy when you set them in motion, everything about these matters, points to them obeying the mathematics of spinning spheres.
There is a history to the writing of physics, and when you see the term, ‘ideal’ or ‘idealized’ in early discovery of matter-energy relationships, those people were talking about things that behaved typically, as spherical because this globe like spherical geometry is universally smooth without anything to alter the way it performs amid it’s environment, if you set it into motion and clock what happens to it.
I saw this said somewhere, regarding trying to understand how these spinning objects could still have some kind of polarity that could vary: you know those spherical globe like balls, they put into the energy shake glasses, the ones that are supposed to help break up the particles?
When you look at how these are made, you will see that it is actually a spherical coil spring, that has been made in a fashion that’s kinda slick.
Ok now: you know how if you have one coil spring, and you take a second one, if you throw them into a machine and tumble them, you’re gonna notice that sometimes, the springs will sort of ‘sister’ together, they will entwine, and follow the identical geometry, together.
This can be done with those completely spherical wire coil springs they put into energy shakes, too, because the principles involved here – two screws, each of spherical shape – there’s a thousand ways to turn these things and they won’t just *click* interleave, mm for mm of wire laying alongside each other, both occupying effectively – just nearly the same damned space, ya know?
Well – when you’re thinking about how things ‘resonate’ ? This is what they are talking about in a sense. You could take two of these spherical wire mixing balls and put em in a tumbler, and when conditions were right, you could set them resonating together.
And then when you realize this – being a coil spring they are in fact, a screw, in a sense -they have a polarity, they have spin characteristics based on the shape of a sphere, though…
under certain conditions, they readily sorta lock together and start to resonate, together in a way that makes it very obvious it’s because they share some very uniquely qualifying characteristics separate from each other, that make them act like they are very much, shaped or somehow constructed, the same way.
You then come to the point that you could make one of these of metal, but make another one of very lightweight polypropylene
such that when the two of them begin rebounding around in the tumbler together,
the physical aspects of the one,
would predominate in determining how the two of them together, moved.
This is what your’e talking about in atomic physics like this, Gary: you have a spherical object, that has spin and that spin has a polarity to it. It’s compressible, and – these likenesses just go on and on Gary, but it’s much like the resonance of two coil springs together.
When you see someone say that phrase about two coil springs, these are the coil spring shape they mean: spherical,
coil springs.
TeRRIBLe phrasing through some of that, sorry.
” there’s a thousand ways to turn these things and they won’t just *click* interleave, mm for mm of wire laying alongside each other, both occupying effectively – just nearly the same damned space, ya know?”
It was supposed to be something like
… ” there’s a a thousand ways to turn these things and they won’t interleave, but when conditions are right and their complementary spins do interleave, *click* millimeter-for-millimeter of wire, they lay alongside each other, both occupying effectively just damned near the same space.”
My bad.
What I have noticed that since 1979, all the warming shows up when there is an El-Nino, otherwise NO warming at all,which eliminates CO2 completely as a cause of warming,since it doesn’t show up at all in the data.
and,
and,
I have another example of energy transfer.
A blow torch flame on a strip of steel. The steel will never get hotter than the flame.
Add a second torch on the steel. The steel will have a temp, though slightly higher than with one torch, that will still be lower than the flames.
Add 100 torches, the steel will still never be hotter than the flame. People like Willis seem to think that you can add energy sources to get an accumulative temperature. But the real world doesnt work that way.
Exactly!
“A blow torch flame on a strip of steel. The steel will never get hotter than the flame.”
“People like Willis seem to think that you can add energy sources to get an accumulative temperature.”
Actually they are even worse than what you say.
They claim you can reflect the radiation from the heated steel back onto the steel from a foot or more away and this will heat the steel even further.
They even conducted the most ridiculous set of “experiments” ever undertaken to show they were right whilst all they achieved was to demonstrate they had insufficient intelligence to even realise just how stupid they are !
Who says radiant emissions are a one to one equivalent to radiant input anyway ?
None of the science I can find says anything other than radiant emission is proportional to temperature of the emitting object.
These idiots have it exactly backward – they claim temperature is determined by radiant emissions.
How can they be so stupid ?
ST.
Could you put together one complete graph with 98 and 2016 El Nino’s in, and then separated out with the rest of the EN’s as you have above please. [ i want to snip it to my desktop thanks].
I haven’t been on in a bit, but I wanted to make a comment from an avenue that ties in with the general discussion but hopefully adds constructively.
Effective height of radiation is a real thing, but the proper term to discuss from a physics perspective (not climatology), I believe should be or rather is based on the concept of “mean free path”. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere the mean free path in the relative bandwidths will change (shorten) which will result in a very tiny change in the energy distribution (aka the thermal gradient of the atmosphere) -Note that a change in the distribution does nothing to help the retarded and illusory RGHE (still non-existent). No new energy is added, but as has been pointed out before in JPs last post above, emissions will increase because CO2 is a coolant.
Short of conducting an atmospheric experiment I would wager that detecting the change in the thermal gradient via dCO2/dT(K) would be incredibly difficult if not impossible. It would need to be done in a lab with significant dCO2 iteration sizes and ranges given it’s small relative Cp in the atmospheric makeup.
I think what I have said above regarding the change in atmospheric Cp and relative temp gradient has actually been calculated by someone somewhere whose name eludes me at the moment, but he is of like minded opinion from what I recall.
Found it-
Note: Name of the gentleman is Nasif Nahle. Calculations he did can be found here:
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html#anchor_43
Please read his write up for his assumptions and methodology. I believe it is generally correct given the constraints.
Change he calculated was .006K and I do believe that would probably be unmeasurable in an atmospheric experiment but could be demonstrated in a lab. Just remember that local change in T is not proof of the RGHE, it is only a result of Beer-Lambert. It is just a change in the energy distribution in the atmosphere not an increase in total energy. The majority of the energy doing the work here comes from Terra firma which previously came from the sun (and the portion from radioactive decay, friction etc). Low energy IR is not capable of doing anymore work in the lower atmosphere/dirt to create the fraudulent RGHE.
The atmosphere is not a magic amplifier, much to the chagrin of the fraudster sophists.
As usual if I have made any errors JP please correct/point them out.
FYI- Sorry for some reason my browser (Firefox) didn’t update the more recent posts (Allen Eltor’s primarily- love them).
JPs post I was referencing is stamped-
2017/11/16 at 7:27 PM
Joe Postma: I gather from the fact that my last three comments remain in moderation that you aren’t willing to continue to discuss facts that challenge your current conceptions about the GHE. That is, of course, your privilege.
Fact #1: The rate that an object radiatively cools (loses HEAT) depends on what surrounds the object: a room, an igloo, interstellar space, a Steel Greenhouse, or (in the case of the Earth) and atmosphere. All of the equations you cite where a term like T_0^4 or T_a^4 are subtracted say mathematically that the rate of cooling depends on the temperature of the surroundings – though you seem reluctant to clearly express this mathematics in words
P_sp = 4πR_sp^2*σ(T_sp^4 – T_0^4)
[JP: You’re not saying anything that’s not known, or has an effect, here. You’re stating obvious things. Thank you. One thing though: the rate that an object emits at is not dependent upon its surroundings…only the rate at which is cools or warms is affected by the surroundings.]
Fact #2: The temperature of an object depends on the rate at which energy leaves that object in addition to the rate at which energy enters that object.
[JP: That’s not quite what temperature is. The temperature of an object depends on when the energy leaving vs. that absorbed is equal to zero. If there is a difference between energy leaving vs. entering, then temperature is changing.]
Changing the emissivity of the windows on a house slows down the rate at which thermal radiation carries energy away from your house. My house isn’t being heated by its low emissivity windows, but it would be warmer if the true source of its heat – my furnace – ran for the same amount of time.
[JP: Lowering the emissivity of the ground surface is not the radiative greenhouse effect, nor is something that “GHG’s” are capable of doing.]
If you put Fact #1 together with Fact #2, you might eventually reach the conclusion that a GHE actually exists: The Earth becomes warmer because GHGs slow down the rate at which the Earth radiatively cools – loses HEAT – to space.
[JP: Facts 1 & 2 do NOT go together, however, to demonstrate or explain the radiative greenhouse effect, because lowering the emissivity of the planet is NOT what the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect is about. GHG’s are supposed to be stronger emitters, thus, they have higher emissivity than the other gases, hence, this line of reasoning is wrong. You’re making things up. Hence why your comments are moderated and/or trashed.]
Unfortunately, alarmists climate scientists want people to think the subject is simple and obvious. They tell us that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere or that the atmosphere heats the surface. The sun heats the surface! They tell us it has something to do with 33 degC warmer, but the GHE is best described as a reduction in outward radiation from an average of 390 W/m2 at the surface to 240 W/m2 at the TOA caused by absorption and emission of thermal infrared by GHGs. However, this only happens because the atmosphere gets colder with altitude where most photons are absorbed and omitted. There would be no GHE in an isothermal atmosphere. In fact, there is little GHE in Antarctica because there is little change in temperature with altitude there. The big picture is that HEAT flows from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere and from the warmer atmosphere to colder space by radiation – but the RATE of heat flow in the outward direction (as predicted by the 2LoT) is reduced by GHGs.
[JP: The mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm is very well established in the scientific literature, with full mathematical derivations in the context of their model, etc. It’s not confusing, other than it being incorrect physics. Of course there should still be a RGHE is an isothermal atmosphere…the mechanism of the RGHE is not dependent upon temperature differences per-se. This is all just so incoherent.]
The question of whether a two-way or one-way flux of radiant ENERGY between the surface and the atmosphere haunts discussions of the GHE. However, everyone believes that the net flux of energy – HEAT – is given by the equations you have written. Your equations result in a GHE.
[JP: Making a baseless claim is not an argument. The equation of heat flow and the First Law of Thermodynamics specifically outlaw a RGHE.]
The infamous K&T ENERGY flux diagram could be converted into a HEAT flux diagram by subtracting 333 W/m2 of DLR from 390 W/m2 of OLR to get an average HEAT flux of 57 W/m2 from the warmer Earth to the colder atmosphere (and space). It’s too bad they didn’t bother to show everyone that their scheme is consistent with the 2LoT.
[JP: It is the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that the RGHE scheme, and their scheme, cannot exist.]
Given the absolutely incompetent and incorrect explanations for the GHE provided by climate scientists, it is no wonder that many have difficulty accepting the key concept: GHGs slow down heat flow to space by radiation.
[JP: Oh, but YOU have the correct one, do you? No, I will go with the consensus literature and the mechanism they think they’ve derived. What a ridiculous defence of the RGHE…”The RGHE explained by climate alarm science is not the correct RGHE, but my personal explanation is the real RGHE.” NOT!]
(You could even call that a reduction in the planet’s emissivity calculated on the basis of mean surface temperature.)
[JP: The mean surface temperature is not representative of the whole planet or whole troposphere, and so means nothing.]
Hundred of college physics professors in the early 20th century were unable to grasp the revolutions in quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and relativity. Einstein himself infamously spent his later years trying and failing to find an alternative to quantum mechanics where elementary particles would follow Newton’s and Maxwell’s Laws. This material is hard.
[JP: Except Einstein’s (and many others) objections were correct, and the Interpretation of QM were and are still wrong.
Just because Einstein and others failed in finding a rational solution does not equate to a rational solution not existing.
It’s not that the material of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is hard…it is that it is irrational, and wrong, and the difficulty is found in getting the mind to accept the underlying cognitive dissonance and not solving it. The material is hard, because its wrong, and Einstein and many others of that calibre all suspected and knew that, and died knowing it.]
One would think that something as big as the atmosphere could be understood without getting into the behavior of individual molecules and photons, but that isn’t completely possible. Petty has written a wonderful and inexpensive textbook “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” (which has nothing to do with climate science) which spends 30 pages reviewing classical electromagnetic radiation and about 5 pages on things that can’t be explained without quantum mechanics. There is nothing simple about the GHE or the enhanced GHE. Good luck.
[JP: I think you wish that is was not as simple as it actually is, that you may claim a “complexity of the gaps” to hide within. It is actually quite simple:
Read the book:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07L2KWJB7 ]
Fizziks is the preferred science of alarmist climatologists. A fizzicist, thus, is a confused blowhard who dwells among the roots and tangles of his/her own delusions. He/she often rebuts and insults logical arguments cast forth by knowledgeable climate-change skeptics, but even the savviest of rational beings knows better than to cross him/her — many are the tales of those who have underestimated this sophistic character. Often mistaken for some manner of expert, the fizzicist commands huge, illogical beasts of deep misunderstanding, and delights in confounding his allies and enemies alike.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F I Z Z I C I S T
Epitaph: King Crimson…….
The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams
Upon the instruments of death
The sunlight brightly gleams
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
When silence drowns the screams
Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh
But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known;
Knowledge is a deadly friend
If no one sets the rules
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools
The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams
Upon the instruments of death
The sunlight brightly gleams
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
When silence drowns the screams
Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh
But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
Crying
Crying
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
To be continued….. simul nos firmiores ……………alpha +++
Gary, those charts are from AndyG55, who post them every time a loon tries to blame the warming on CO2.
It is a valid point since no CO2 warming can be found ASIDE from El-Nino events, with no warming left over, CO2 has nothing to show.
CO2 temperature sensitivity appears to be about ZERO.
It is the Sun, Water Vapor, clouds and the Ocean waters that drives temperature changes. CO2 has nothing to do with weather, as its role lies elsewhere.
Dear Joe,
I’m NOT a radiation physics advocate. I prefer the analogy of more than one equal lights illuminating an area. Incremental illumination doesn’t make the area brighter. A very simple illustration of where the radiation physics advocates get it all wrong and much simpler than the usual technical rebuttals.
Cheers, Phil Clark
Joseph, you might find this very interesting!
Shock Paper Cites Formula That Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2
Excerpts:
“In a new peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal Earth Sciences last December (2017), a Federation University (Australia) Science and Engineering student named Robert Holmes contends he may have found the key to unlocking our understanding of how planets with thick atmospheres (like Earth) remain “fixed” at 288 Kelvin (K), 740 K (Venus), 165 K (Jupiter)…without considering the need for a planetary greenhouse effect or changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”
and,
“Holmes used the derived pressure/density/mass numbers for each planetary body. He then calculated the planets’ temperatures with these figures.
Venus’ temperature was calculated to be 739.7 K with the formula. Its measured temperature is 740 K. This indicates that the formula’s accuracy is within an error range of just 0.04% for Venus.”
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/#comments
This was long pointed out by Nikolov and Zeller:
WCC4 Rome: Interview with Nikolov and Zeller
Correction: IS ZERO!
CO2 alarmists, thus, need one of these:
… and CO2 alarmists need to answer the question: “On the daylight side of Earth, is CO2 keeping the planet warmer than it would otherwise be?” — I think not. I suppose, then, that the number “2” in the chemical abbreviation refers to this molecule’s double personality — being one thing on the daylight side and another thing on the night side of Earth.
If CO2 has any ability to keep energy in the atmosphere, and that is a big if, then it cannot do that during the day as the earth does not absorb all the energy it can from the sun because of rotation. It rotates out of the sun before the max energy can be absorbed. CO2 hence cannot keep any of that energy in. Only at night is there any possible CO2 retention of energy. (at the polar regions too).
I think that Robert Holmes is our guy 1000Frolly, who explained all this to us in his two brilliant videos (half-way down the discussion thread for Joseph’s other article titled “The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment”). For ease, I’ve linked them again here;
and
1000Frolly’s since done another Youtube video where has calculated the CO2 sensitivity is minus 0.02 deg C;
On TonyHeller’s Youtube channel, both 1000Frolly and Ned Zeller are in deep conversation regarding Tony’s own realisation (for 10-years he claims) that it’s the Atmospheric Pressure Effect – not the Radiative Greenhouse Effect which causes the surface temperature of a planet/moon (that has a troposphere) to differ from the effective S-B temperature of that body. Tony’s video on the subject can be seen at:
How does one molecule per 2500 other molecules of air “keep any energy in”? I see no way, unless it somehow magically energizes, say, 100 molecules of water vapor per that 2500, which then somehow magically energizes the other 2400 molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, and the few others BEYOND the heat capacity of the MIXTURE of atmospheric air as a whole (already operating from the solar input into the whole).
Here you have this huge number of atmospheric molecules held into a certain density by gravity near Earth’s surface, touching ground and water heated by the sun. The molecules of ground and water move around faster now because of this sun heating. Because gravity holds air molecules near Earth’s surface in a pretty tight arrangement (density), these now sun-energized ground-and-water molecules transfer some of their now faster movement to the gravity-determined air density, to get those air molecules energized (conduction).
CO2 is a molecular part of this sun-energized ground/water molecular giggling of gravity-determined whole-air density. More precisely, CO2 is 1 molecule per 2500 other molecules taking this ride. It’s radiative uniqueness does little compared to all that other molecular jiggling in which it rides as part of a whole fluid mass, driven by a level of dynamics many orders greater than the subatomic level of photons. At least, this is how I am seeing it now.
Robert Holmes is commenting in the above link I provided!
Look here for his replies to a world class warmist loon, Sebastian.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/comment-page-1/#comment-1250787
Here is how stupid Sebastian can be,
“….What you seem to think is that the pressure sets the temperature and the pressure is a result of gravity, right? That was the case when the solar system formed, but the heat from that initial compression of Earths atmosphere is long gone. Like a bicycle tire doesn’t stay warm for long after you pumped it full of air. Gravity isn’t performing any work on a settled atmosphere.”
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/comment-page-1/#comment-1250835
My two replies which has not been approved yet:
“Sebastian writes this idiotic bomb,
“What you seem to think is that the pressure sets the temperature and the pressure is a result of gravity, right? That was the case when the solar system formed, but the heat from that initial compression of Earths atmosphere is long gone. Like a bicycle tire doesn’t stay warm for long after you pumped it full of air. Gravity isn’t performing any work on a settled atmosphere.”
First he says the Atmosphere is,……. he he he…. hahahahaha … “settled”
Second he says Gravity isn’t performing any work on that “settled atmosphere”, which make rational people wonder…..,
WHAT IS KEEPING THE ATMOPHERE ON THE SURFACE?
If Gravity isn’t performing any work on the planet……
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
and,
I just realized that it is those awesome super CO2 molecules behaving like a sheepdog, keeping the atmosphere from leaving the planet.
Why didn’t (you) say so, Sebastian?
Gravity isn’t performing any work on a settled atmosphere.
This seems to be one of the primary claims accompanied by “there are no containing walls against which pressurized gas can act”, … or something like that requiring walls, in order for the gas law to apply.
I’m not sure how to formally address these claims mathematically, but common sense tells me that solid walls are not needed. If gravity is always acting to hold the atmosphere down, then what is it doing if not work to keep the atmosphere from flying away? The atmosphere looks “settled”, because gravity WORKS to make it look this way, … right?
The adiabatic gradient is a thing. It exists. It’s real. It’s calculable. It’s measurable. To deny THAT is retarded. Convection exists. Air rises and falls. Molecules rise and fall.
Well, shock of all shocks, this has also made it into the latest discussion of WUWT, and, as you might guess, the lead person bashing this is Willis.
I don’t have enough experience with the ideas to counter him convincingly, but I guess I’ll give it a shot. I’m amazed that Anthony allowed this discussion over there at all. Oh, but WIllis brought it up, and he’s a rock star there, so thanks, Willis, it took a rock star to get this to fly with Anthony.
If you have time, zoom on over to WUWT and see what’s being said. … lots of opposition, … some reference to slaying dragons. I’m trying to play with the kiddies, but they’ve got so much more play time in this game than moi. I could use a hand.
Wouldn’t the other 99% of the atmosphere have to stay warmer than the 1% that is optically active at anytime, how does the 99% transfer its energy to the 1% if the 1% is warmer Robert.
Mr. Homes, wrote this lengthy reply to a warmist moron names Sebastian:
“Robert Holmes 7. February 2018 at 4:42 AM | Permalink | Reply
Useful Idiot;
Re; snowball Earth calcs with 12% extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have adjusted the values of M and ρ by also increasing them by 12% as per the pressure;
T= 113.3*32.44/8.314*1.37 = 322 Kelvin.
The result is 49C for an average temperature on Earth.
This would release the planet from the snowball without the need for any greenhouse warming.
Sebastian H
“It’s not increasing downwards, it is decreasing upwards. ”
.
Sebastian has most things backwards.
Sebastian’s posts are a very interesting mix of red herrings, straw men, ad-hominems, incredulity and ignorance.
He is mixed up in many areas, but especially about temperature.
Temperature is the end result, and it is only a measure of the average kinetic energy in a system.
On Earth, temperature is determined by the interplay of pressure and density, with some influence from molar mass via; T=PM/Rρ Pressure, density and molar mass are mainly determined by insolation and auto-compression.
.
“Mine-shafts are warm, because temperature in the outer mantle increases by around 25K per km.- I don’t know what you mean by “auto compression”.”
.
I am a qualified mine ventilation engineer. We incorporate auto-compression into all calculations to establish how hot the mine will get for the mine-workers. We need to know this so that we know how much cooling air to provide. Mines spend millions of dollars in order to cool mine air which has been warmed by auto-compression. Please tell them that they are wasting their money because it does not exist.
.
“What do you think this auto-compression thing is? An invented term describing the effects gravity and density ought to have on temperature …”
.
Try reading this book, and then email the authors telling them auto-compression is ‘invented’; McPherson, M. J. (2012). Subsurface ventilation and environmental engineering: Springer Science & Business Media.
.
“Your argument is circular because you are using the ideal gas law. It doesn’t say anything about what caused pressure or temperature to be what it is.”
.
You have a partial point here, and I have addressed this earlier, and in the paper.
Simply looking at the numbers of the three gas parameters alone cannot give you any information about what has caused the temperature. By calculating the temperatures of differing planetary bodies, it is not my main aim to confirm the gas law, since it has already been confirmed by years of measurement. Instead, my aim is to demonstrate the universality of gas thermodynamic atmospheric effects. However, that also is not the full story. Here are 10 independent reasons why I think that CO2 does not warm the troposphere measurably;
1) because every planetary body with a thick atmosphere has a clear thermal gradient, which always starts at 10kPa – regardless of the presence or not of GHG
2) recent papers show that convection dominates over radiative transfers in all atmospheres >10kPa – meaning that on Earth radiative energy transfers take a back seat in the troposphere
3) my knowledge of the physics of star-formation led me to believe that this aspect of gas thermodynamics had been neglected in our atmosphere.
4) growing evidence that the alleged ratio of forcing since 1750 (anthropogenic vs natural) was wrong
5) growing evidence that the climate sensitivity to CO2 after feed-backs was low, or even zero
6) growing evidence that factors other than CO2 drive climate change (clouds, climate cycles).
7) growing evidence that Venus was not hot because of the greenhouse effect of CO2
8) there is no empirical evidence, quantified in a published paper, that more CO2 causes any warming anywhere in the atmosphere
9) my knowledge of auto-compression indicated what the real reason for the residual temperature effect on planetary bodies was
10) Lastly, that a small input change of one gas (i.e. +0.03% of CO2) into the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not possibly change the three gas parameters enough to increase global temperatures by 3C, as alleged by the IPCC.
“It doesn’t continuously compress … !”
.
The entire troposphere is in motion; convective motion. Half of it is descending and compressing, and half of it is ascending and de-compressing. Not sure who is telling you that parcels of air do not undergo compression – if it’s your professor, you should try to get him fired.”
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/comment-page-1/#comment-1250983
I have not been on WUWT with any regularity since leaving their ridiculous behavior and ignorance many years ago. I did go and check out the discussion; particularly Willis’ response which was logically speaking- baseless nonsense. He is a smart fellow, but he lacks formal discipline and this is what gets him where he is, because he lacks the ability to formulate a reality based ontology, so is easily brought into very confounding rationalizations. It is the same for many of the commenters. One of the many reasons I stopped wasting my time there. The infinite pile of blather that follows in the commentary is just more of the same. I did see a few people attempting to have meaningful discussion, but they are bowled over by the pigs and the mud. It is a bottomless pit.
It is difficult to convince people that believe devoutly in unicorns that there are none. At some point reality will outweigh the ignorance and things will be set right, but history is filled with horrific events that litter the in between, while reality catches up to the adherents of sophistry.
Short story is yes the IGL puts in inescapable dispute the RGHE. Something that many folks over the years have pointed out only to be rebuffed by the unicorn hunters. Like all great fishermen they have marvelous stories and little evidence.
Groupthink is a term they should seek to understand in how it is destroying their ability to think.
I’m trying to craft a reasonably intelligent, non-combative response to Willis over at WUWT. To support his claims, he recently posted a link to one of his earlier articles that supposedly shows that theories like those of Nikolov and Zeller can be reduced to contradiction.
He seems to think he did this in one paragraph, which I have made a first effort to analyze, as follows:
So let us assume that we have the airless perfectly evenly heated blackbody planet that I spoke of above, evenly surrounded by a sphere of mini-suns. The temperature of this theoretical planet is, of course, the theoretical S-B temperature.
Okay, the S-B (Stephan Boltzmann) temperature of the AIRLESS, perfectly heated blackbody planet has the reference surface for defining the SB temperature at ground level.
Now suppose we add an atmosphere to the planet, a transparent GHG-free atmosphere.
Well, when you do this, do you not change the structure of the original blackbody? Haven’t you added more mass and increased the radius of the AIRLESS blackbody, and, thus, now have CHANGED the REFERENCE SURFACE that defines the SB temperature of this effectively NEW blackbody with a different radius and different reference surface for the SB temperature?
The SB temperature, then, no longer refers to the original airless surface, but now refers to a surface somewhere between the original surface and higher up in the now added atmosphere.
If the theories of N&K and Jelbring are correct, the temperature of the planet will rise.
Well, yes, because now there is a mass of gas, where there was no such mass on the airless planet, and we can measure the effects of such a gas surrounding the planet in a real world.
But when the temperature of a perfect blackbody planet rises … the surface radiation of that planet must rise as well.
Here’s where I see confusion. The temperature of the AIRLESS blackbody has NOT risen. Rather, the addition of a mass of gas around a once airless sphere has created a DIFFERENT blackbody, with a DIFFERENT reference surface that radiates to space. The radiation of the planet with air is now greater, but it radiates, NOT at the airless surface, but higher up now, over a DIFFERENT, greater surface area. More radiation can happen, because the now higher-up spherical-shell defining the surface of this radiation has MORE AREA. Also, other processes are happening in this new mass addition that were not happening in the counterpart minus this new mass.
And because the atmosphere is transparent, this means that the planet is radiating to space more energy than it receives.
No, this is an error in thinking, propagated by the consequencies of treating the first blackbody — an AIRLESS planet — as though it were the second blackbody — now WITH AIR. The original airless planet is no longer the original airless planet radiating. A different planet is now radiating — a planet WITH air.
Again, I do not see the two black bodies as the same blackbody. I also do not see the temperature of the air as the same metric as the temperature of the blackbody. If adding an atmosphere is significant, then the geometry (radius, surface area) that conceptually defines this addition has physical consequencies (i.e., a higher-up reference surface for the blackbody, … a greater surface area from which radiation radiates, … and a temperature within the gas, measured with instruments, that is NOT the temperature of the blackbody surface figured mathematically with a formula).
This is an obvious violation of conservation of energy, so any theories proposing such a warming must be incorrect.
Q.E.D.
I’m thinking that this might be more a confusion of reference frames, so any theories opposing such a warming might be intolerant of looking deeper.
N.S.F.
(Not So Fast)
______________________________________________________
Is this completely ignorant on my part, or is this a reasonable response to Willis’ arguments?
Thanks for input.
Holmes doesn’t use Volume in his equations, thus the blackbody argument doesn’t apply here.
“Holmes has argued that the average temperature for 8 planetary bodies with thick (0.1 bar or more) atmospheres can be precisely measured with “extreme” accuracy — an error range of just 1.2% — by using a formula predicated on the knowledge of 3 parameters: “[1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere.”
Holmes used the derived pressure/density/mass numbers for each planetary body. He then calculated the planets’ temperatures with these figures.”
and,
“[T]he hypothesis being put forward here is that in the case of Earth, solar insolation provides the ‘first’ 255 Kelvin – in accordance with the black body law [11]. Then adiabatic auto-compression provides the ‘other’ 33 Kelvin, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin. The ‘other’ 33 Kelvin cannot be provided by the greenhouse effect, because if it was, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not then work to accurately calculate planetary temperatures, as it clearly does here.
It is apparent that this simple formula calculates the ‘surface’ temperatures of many planetary bodies in our Solar System accurately (Figure 2).
Specifically, those which have atmospheres thick enough to form a troposphere (i.e. possessing an atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa or 0.1bar). These are: Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Uranus and Neptune. All calculated temperatures are within 1.2% of the NASA reported ‘surface’ temperature (except for Mars, which is excluded because it has a much lower atmospheric pressure than 10kPa).
This accuracy is achieved without using the S-B black body law, or the need to include terms for such parameters as TSI levels, albedo, clouds, greenhouse effect or, for that matter, adiabatic auto-compression. All that is required to be able to accurately calculate the average near-surface atmospheric temperature, is the relevant gas constant and the knowledge of three variable gas parameters.”
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.UcOpFPuD.PzdiYXbw.dpbs
Correct. The fact that warm air rising and cooling then falling proves gravity is continuously doing work on the atmosphere. There is no such thing as a “settled” atmosphere. That can only happen if there is no circulation nor convection.
My bolding of text keeps getting removed, where I am trying to make distinctions between what another person says and what I say in response. In my last comment, the bolding showed when I first submitted the post, but now I look at it, and there is NO distinction between what I quote Willis as saying and what I would be saying in response.
I guess the issue I am trying to resolve involves the application of the S-B formula. It seems odd to me that a person can apply the formula to a body with no atmosphere, next add an atmosphere, and then apply the formula ONLY to the original body, when the characteristics of the original body (via addition of atmosphere) have been modified. How can the S-B formula be used, as though the atmosphere does NOT exist with the atmosphere’s own dynamics (known or unknown)?
How is it permissible that the S-B calculation can just ignore the atmosphere as a component of the system for which it is supposedly calculating a surface temperature? The body in question is the planet AND its atmosphere, … NOT just the planet and “never-mind-the-atmosphere-because-the-SB-formula-cannot-account-for-atmospheres.” The “surface” of the system is now at the top of the atmosphere just added, and yet the S-B formula is bequeathed the right to ignore THIS new surface, because the perfection of the body for which it is designed to calculate has a limit at the solid surface only.
It seems that this formula allows blindness to other formulas, for other circumstances for which the formula was never conceived to handle. In this case, a black body becomes a black body with a largely-non-blackbody shell, to form a system for which the S-B equation seems to no longer apply, because the SYSTEM as a WHOLE no longer meets the requirements for a “nearly perfect black body.” It seems incorrect to call the planet with no atmosphere and the planet with an atmosphere the same body, let alone the same BLACK body.
Hey Guys! I have a quick question. I have been debating on and off with very basic understanding of principles of the 2nd law in radiative transfer, but encountered a counter argument such as this: essentially 2nd law only applies to closed systems, open systems are outside of the 2nd. law’s constraints and thus it follows that my argument is somehow invalid. Intuitively I know that doesn’t cancel how heat flows, I mean it’s a law. How would you guys counter this type of argument?
It should be pointed out that Eschenbach is a confirmed, doped down, COMBATIVE mentally ill man.
That’s a fact.
He has a degree in psychology – manipulating people, from the 1970s,
a vocational certification in MASSAGE – a job that basically, ends up with the masseuse often outright masturbating strangers,
and he’s a *confirmed* doped down
COMBATIVE
mentally ill man.
That’s Eschenbach. I saw Eschenbach one time, try to take credit for the ENTIRE scientific movement exposing the frauds of the various Magical Gassiness Brigade. I know my quote isn’t accurate, but he said something along the line of “You might as well say I’m responsible for almost all of this skeptical movement” or some similarly ridiculous tripe. He’s just fu*king grandiose insane.
I saw him admit early on he takes drugs
for controlling his aggressive, in other words, assaultive/combative behavior.
Go figure, huh.
Then there’s the matter of Magic Gas Tony himself,
Anthony ” My divorce came as a complete surprise” Watts
Watts is a college dropout.
He has no degree, he has no reputation except as – wait for it – a mass media
entertainment professional.
No degree, and yet – he’s a ‘meteorologist.’
He’s a California Republican, called a ‘watermelon’ – green on the outside, pure, craven, authority worshipper on the inside.
He’s another of the myriad QUACKS who find the DemonicRats Party so infested with like minded creeps,
that there’s no way to get any traction.
They are loyal to nothing, and nobody, so they pack up their grandiosities and announce they are now Republicans. California is *infamous* for this very phenomenon.
And there’s Magic Gas Tony, right in the middle of it.
Three or four college towns north of Sacramento, the heart of Watermelon Country, there’s fat Tony, peddling his
ZEV2GO ELECTRIC CARS on EBay.
A complete kook himself, without the morality to stand shoulder to shoulder with other temporarily unknown people, and say a cold bath isn’t a magical heater, because he discovered government employees were running the scam, HE just JUMPED SHIP and started SNITCHING OUT, BAITING, & LIBELING SKEPTICS, while claiming he, himself, was one of them.
Think of the Vichy government. KooK and co. @ Skeptical Science website, all pasting their faces onto portraits of Nazis burning Russia. They were celebrating their burning down, of – what? SCIENCE.
KooK and all his friends, are government employees. It’s their Nazi Party, systematically crippling Atmospheric Sciences so they can steal the world’s people blind.
Why is Watts such a hate-filled, rabid Skeptic hating
ass-wipe, so ineffective at aiding the skeptical science movement, so openly mocking of real scientific discussions and papers lauded worldwide by real scientists and scientific personnel, alike?
Because Watts is the Vichy government compliment to J. KooK and company at SkepticalScience.
He’s not a government employee -not a member of the real Nazi party –
but he serves as gatekeeper and propagandizer to the populace and activists who wish to get together and criticize the invading Nazis.
He has a long list of “bad words you can’t say about the criminals, the frauds who teach your children a cold nitrogen bath is an angry magic heater” – odd for someone who SHOULD be OUTRAGED at the deliberate destruction of science.
WHY does HE hate YOU more than the frauds he smarms with, calling them ” our friends “?
That’s literally insane, unless you take the only SANE choice: he’s a weak, loser collaborator, who hates the scientists he can never be one of, and thought if he would gate keep and snitch, fingering every skeptic he could, humiliating them, pretending they’re incompetent – the ‘Good War’ – burning science to the ground through sheer hate, jealousy, zeal and greed, – the ‘good times’ would never end.
That’s the kind of intellectual and spiritual midget, Fat Tony is. He’d rather profit today and aggrandize himself as the world’s largest climate website owner viciously libeling and insulting the REAL scientists people want to hear from and share commentary with, acting snidely, smugly satisfied he can interrupt and insult EVERYONE with rules OBVIOUSLY designed to CURTAIL scientist’s opinions about fraud, and crime
While he calls himself a’meteorologist’. He is to the scientific fields, what the man putting gas in your car is, to the automotive fields. That attendant might be called a ‘fuel technician’ but so is the man with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree, transferring fuel between 75,000 and 125,000 gallon tanks, giant salt domes and supertankers.
They’re both ‘fuel transfer specialists.’
Well that’s Watts’ relationship to atmospheric science. So he has no reputation to damage. Just like the people in the Vichy government: they were losers when real qualified Frenchmen applied for the leadership jobs. But if you just cut out all the qualified people,
Suddenly, yew ar a reall smarte fellur. Magical Gassiness has dun turnt the sky intwo a big old magical heedur and thair aint none whut kin dyspewt it. Thair aint evun nobody else what can understand the magical gaissiness except our krack college dropouts. Thay alone has got the deap, insights that gives understandin about the marvelous magical gaissiness.
YaW.
So that’s what you’re dealing with, when you’re trying to fathom why commentary and comments in general at Magic Gas Tony’s feels like you are in the home of the Taliban, asking where’s the coffee shop.
Watts is as corrupt as the original thieves at Real Climate. He’s as corrupt as the secondary government employee thieves at Skeptical Science. He knows none of it’s real, a f**king 10 year old can be taught a cold nitrogen bath can’t be a heater, and how to check.
John KooK et al are the occupation troops making sure the fraud of the major grants scammers is taught as real science -they are part of the same Nazi army, they just fill a different niche after the original, largest thefts have been taken by their science destroying shock troops who gutted science and installed fakery in endless reams.
Watts is the Vichy government analog in this story of government employees pasting their own faces onto portraits of WWII Nazis: completely unqualified to pump fuel at a gas station, when he is on his website he is an ‘author, educator, *meteorologist, leader, and integrity assurance specialist.
With a long list of words that you can’t say about the Nazis, or your ‘discussion’ is sent to his “team of moderators so they can ‘ examine’ it.
He needs a ‘team of moderators’ to “examine” your discussion about the w.e.a.t.h.e.r.
SAYING a COLD NITROGEN BATH isn’t a giant magic HEATER means “your speech is suspect”
Suspect of WHAT? Suspect of implying a cold nitrogen bath isn’t a HEATER – and that the light blocking refrigerants arent the GianTiny CORE of the cold bath that is a magic HEATER.
The magic heater ” caint no body understand if’n thay ain’t signtsie. Like me and Willis.
Willis, the doped down mentally ill man
who never shadowed a seat in ANY technical education program of ANY KIND, yet who purports to hold forth corrections of the men whose intellectual jock straps he’s not fit to carry or even sniff.
A combative insulting mentally ill man FAKING understanding of something as simple as gas temperatures. Claiming to CORRECT men who did it right.
A doped up mentally ill man claiming to be running a thread on atmospheric chemistry, making people feel like “they dont want to seem combative”
to the doped up mentally ill man they try to tell the laws of thermodynamics written for solving the temperatures of gases and atmospheres
Are the laws of thermodynamics for solving the temperatures of gases and atmospheres.
Again the combative mentally ill man hosting an atmospheric chemistry thread,
and who believes a cold nitrogen bath is a HEATER
CAN’T BE TOLD the GAS LAW WRITTEN to CALCULATE gas and atmospheric temperatures,
is used to calculate gas and atmospheric temperatures.
He’s fu**ing crazy. He’s just as insane and brainless as you would have to be, to be say and do the things he embodies.
He thinks he’s the enforcer of Fat Tony’s FAKE SCIENCE Vichy class alt.science website, where cold nitrogen baths are heaters, and “if yew caint understand that, yew caint be signtsie like me.”
He’s as fu**ing crazy as a smoke filled basement full of tweakers cooking meth. I’m not exaggerating, and I’m kind of not laughing, either.
He really is just as insane as a bedbug. Not to mention as amoral as Magic Gas Watts. The two of them represent the head and security chief of the Vichy government.
Fat Tony – if he’s honest, why doesn’t he have his Electric Cars, he peddles on Ebay, on his website?
And why doesnt Fat, Greasy Tony, have his Republican Activist stuff posted on his website?
Poor little Fat Tony, he can’t find a SOUL who can explain to him, that a cold nitrogen bath isn’t a giant, magic heater.
It’s all so complicated.. who can tell if a cold nitrogen bath is a giant, magical heater or not?
Fat Tony can’t.
Fat Tony is a ‘ meteorologist ‘
who has to have doped down mentally ill Willis, run his atmospheric chemistry thread.
Because a mentally ill man can defend the “signts” about the magical gassiness
making a cold nitrogen bath turn into a giant, magical heater.
And the LAW of PHYSICS written to calculate it’s temperature
can’t be used to calculate it’s temperature.
A combative mentally ill man, whose technical certification is for masturbating people,
and whose theoretical education is in manipulating people.
Running a thread where he boldly declares, that the law of thermodynamics written to calculate the temperature of a phase of matter,
can’t be used to calculate the temperature of that phase matter
That’s Fat Tony’s idea of “technical competence.”
A mentally ill man with a degree in manipulating people, and a vocational certificate in masturbating people,
running an Atmospheric Chemistry thread
on how the lae of physics written to calculate gas temperature,
can’t be used to calculate gas temperature.
The Earth-Sun system is the closed system. Of course the Earth is open to the Sun. Sophistry to say that the Earth is not closed when no one claimed it was given that the context is already the Earth-Sun system. 2nd Law therefore applies to the Earth-Sun system…but it’s not the point. The RGHE violates the FIRST law. Again: the RGHE violates the FIRST law. dU = dQ + dW. Q is heat, W is work…backradiation has no heat and does no work, therefore can’t cause dU change in thermal energy. In other words RGHE violates conservation of energy.
Alan Editor, that’s probably the longest ad hominem that I’ve ever read.
Entertaining, but I’m not sure how much good it does for our reputations here. (^_^)
I have been tracking down Ned Nikolov’s replies to his brutal critics. I’d say his critics fit the description of “combative”, and so Alan’s comments could well be distributed to have greater effect, if one were to go this route.
Seriously though, in looking over the critiques, I find that the level of math required to understand the fine points enables only the most sophisticated sophists to play.
Holder’s inequality? Double integrals? … pretty heavy stuff, but I actually think I get the gist of it.
I have never felt good about the way the Stefan-Boltzmann law is traditionally applied, and I just couldn’t put my finger on why. But I’m a little closer now, I think.
Joseph: if you dont feel like putting those two posts up, don’t, man. Lol.
It was late and I kinda got hung up on the sheer,
Incredibly bizarre nature of things
when a man – a self confessed mentally ill man who admits
to being drugged, to limit his grandiosity and aggression
is foisted onto the world by another man who also shows REPEATED evidence of bizarre, hate filled malice toward the very scientific world reeling with the discovery men and women have COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED
ALL THE ATMOSPHERIC and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
telling children from Kindergarten thtough University courses that –
THE LAW WRITTEN TO CALCULATE the TEMPERATURES of GASES
has been discovered to not actually calculate the temperatures of matter
but be off by tens and hundreds of degrees according to the gas volume solved for…
The college dropout who claims he is a meteorologist, and who shows, himself –
***mentally ill levels***
of completely unexplainable hatred
toward ANYONE
who suggests the
Laws of physics,
explain the temperature of Air,***
to the point that HE HAS A TEAM OF MODERATORS
‘EXAMINE’
the conversation of people who suggest the laws of physics ARE true
and that FRAUDS
caught admitting to each other thry are terrified of being exposed as FRAUDS
are FRAUDS…
These two MANIPULOPATH HICKS
are telling HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people, millions of people, worldwide, that
EVERYBODY who says THE TWO of THEM are WRONG,
are the ones who are crazy.
When I go there and say the laws of physics calculate temperatures of
Cold nitrogen baths as
cold nitrogen baths, I’m crazy;
when Joseph Postma tells these two mentally ill men without a jr college education between them, in fundamentals of physical science of ANY kind,
the laws of physics caln calculate the temperature of AIR
HE’S crazy: so crazy he, the Astrophysicist, is BANNED from EVER talking about the WEATHER there again.
When ANY BODY comes there and points out the MENTALLY ILL MEN with ZERO qualification to teach physics
are wrong for telling millions of people
the LAWS of PHYSICS are WRONG
and that a cold bath is not just a heater – but that the
COLD
LIGHT BLOCKING
PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERANTS
stopping 20% of otherwise available spectra from even entering Earth’s physical, hence mathematical systems..
are the GIANTINY CORE of the
Heater
the laws of physics show to be
a cold,
light blocking bath…
Everybody who says the laws of physics can solve thr temperature of AIR
and points out that there’s no place ANYWHERE in the
laws of physics
where the “magicalness of the gassiness”
makes a cold refrigerated bath
a
giant heater –
they think it is appropriate for them to start insulting the people who say that, and that really,
It’s better they simply intercept ANYTHING containing CODE WORDS for “examination” LoL –
You
Can’t
Make
This shit UP –
if you use CODE WORDS that indicate
You think or know the law of physics written for solving gas
temperature
solves for gas temperature,
you are drserving of being insulted, libeled, basically cursed and spit on because
“You can’t understand
the magical gassiness”
the way they do.
The college dropout who infiltrated the political party ostensibly opposed to his legalized theft of hundreds, of thousands of dollars in subsidies
for the zev2go electric ‘cars’, he peddles on EBay
and who brags about his 25years of mass audience manipulation
and who claims to be a ‘meteorologist’
simultaneously claims that he was surprised when his wife finally had enough of his constant scamming and stealing from both sides while playing the middle and divorced him,
and that he is surprised people would tell him the law of physics
WRITTEN to solve the temperatures of cold, light blocking baths,
show the cold light blocking baths
to be
cold, light blocking baths.
And he has talked to the
mentally ill man he consults with
about cold light blocking baths being giant magic heaters only they,
and a bunch of busted computer frauds
understand the ‘magical gassiness’ of,
and they agree that between them all, it is absolutely certain, that
cold nitrogen baths are magical heaters only they and the bunch of busted computer frauds understand,
and the entire rest of the world has it out for them,
because we’re so jealous, that they can understand the laws of thermodynamics are wrong,
and they’re not.
They are JUSTIFIED in speaking to the WHOLE WORLD like they are dogs… treat scientists the ENTIRE honest world agree are right like the scheming, scamming FAKES
they THEMSELVES,
DEMONSTRABLY ARE
while the ENTIRE WORLD looks on with tevulsion that such exposed scammers can thumb their
FAKE
fraudulent
MENTALLY ILL noses
LAUGHING that honest people persist in tellimg them STOP SPREADING FRAUDULENT TALES
that the LAWS of PHYSICS are wrong.
Teaching CHILDREN:in KINDERGARTEN that we discovered the law of physics are wrong and that ”Venus is very hot because of a ‘magical gassiness’ that could make us all burn up if we use too much fire.”
“When we use fire, we could make the sky get hot and it could reflect back down and make us hotter than it’s supposed to be”
and if we dont buy our fire from the right fire peddlers, we could be betraying the earth, making it get too hot and the oceans will rise and swallow up peoples’ houses…
Malicious Tony really is a very, very evil man.
He is the perfect collaborator:
Weak,
Authority worshipper,
Jealous of accomplishment,
Generally ill willed, viciosly insulting as many people as ce can daring people to say the truth at his website again so he can bully, selectively publishing only what he wishes, of others’ words,
A paranoid, bizarre fixation on controlling every word many people say, simply because they insist THE GAS LAWS WRITTEN TO SOLVE THEM ACTUALLY WORK and that he’s WRONG when he says the laws are
Approvsl seeker, accolades and worship addiction; unable to lose arguments in public: no sense of personal shame, much of the time.
*Organized political manipulation – constant scheming and controlling behaviors
Watts is the CLASSICAL profile of the evil, conning manipulator.
My father was a police chief first, then a Federal Law Enforcement Agent for the I.R.S. he was always profiling people; and Watts is the very PROFILE of the self seeking mild psychopath, and overall sociopath.
That’s why he’s hooked to that combative, stupid,
mentally ill Eschenbach,
the way he is.
They’re both too stupid to hang with the educated, but they’re cunnimg enough to stick together and help hustle the scientific integrity mobement from the cover Watts gives them to flatter each other bromancing their way through the con, two born losers who met because of their mutual fascination with fraud, who are instantly outclassed the instant the general public shows up but hey – it’s somethimg to do…
I started out this post sorta laughing at myself for being so alerted to all the profile s those two give off, especially together.
Remember when i said i kinda am not laughing about W. E. being as creepy as they get?
Im a chip off the old law enforcement profiler block,
and i was clocking the Coo- Coos – how, and where, they’ve come to roost, in the back of my mind.
Con men often run in pairs, either playing dumb and dumber, or they switch ofg as each others’ wing man.. giving each other a much needed psychological break, from the constant pressre of the never ending husle – the scam that drsws enemies they both love humiliating.
Individually they’re pathetic; as a pair they’re hopelessly without any vestige of conscience or morality.
The crazy, free-wheeling bully, and the weak, needy nerd: they’ve each found their missing half.
It’s disgusting. Many small timers meet in the shade of some con they’ve both become associated with, realize how big the pie is,
they hook up and it’s like Midnight Cowboy.
Watch the movie midnight cowboy and you’ll understand.
Then imagine Watts as the Ratso Rizzo character and Eschenbach as the Cowboy with no inhibitions and no shame.
They’re a couple of real creeps who have indeed met each other’s vision of who they could have been, if only… they would have been – each other.
And now this scam has thrown them together, they both feel strong, like they’ve met their other half, that never could have been.
The two of them will hang on, defying scientific integrity to figure out the thrill of the scam, till the day each of them scams his last I.M. message from some keyboard on a phone.
Hard core hustler types often meet like these two, each fascinated with some scheme… they reakize there’s a prize of some kind, and they latch on just for the thrill of such a large ride.. money, the grudging respect of other scammers, moving between the criminals who dont work and the real world is intoxicating to them, and they cherish the exclusivity and pride of seeing their names, over and over, at the top of the pages where everybody gathers.
They don’t care that they’re hatrd, to them, everybody else, isca sucker; a grazer, the herd of sheeple they are THRILLED that they can control in exchange for being one of the ‘in’ crowd.
Well – anyway, you get the point.
Everyone should start referring to those two as ” The Midnight Cowboys.”
To their faces, those to should be repeatedly and perpetually referred two as ” the two cowboys” etc L o L.
No? Ill let you guys be the judge.
Midnight Cowboys,
Watts & Willis,
a match made
in the sewers of science: climatology.
… entertaining, but still …
… giving more fuel to foul, so to speak. (^_^)
Joe, that is the perfect encapsulation of the sophists absurd fraud.
Do these guys know that NASA (JSC/KSC- manned Spaceflight centers) tracks the atmospheric fluctuations because it affects the drag on the ISS (as well as other LEO sats) governing how frequently it needs to be reboosted? As in the earth’s atmosphere is not a static body? Work is constantly being done in the atmosphere (thanks Sun!) moving absolutely massive amounts of atmosphere in titanic levels of energy. Read: Nuclear weapons are pitiful in comparison to the work that Thunderstorms etc do on a daily basis.
Yea, … thunderstorms, evaporation, condensation, convection. Where is CO2 and its puny infrared-active behavior in all this? I’ll venture a concise answer: ALONG FOR THE RIDE.
I get the feeling sometimes that the physicists who do the painstakingly detailed breakdowns of CO2’s absorption bands, wings, etc. present the atmosphere as this static mass with these few molecules of CO2 doing this miraculous thing. They are talking about one molecule per 2500 other molecules.
I could go into endless detail on the structure of a single skin cell — spend all my time, everyday — elucidating the intricate, miraculous details of a single cell’s metabolism — drawing cool diagrams, charts, and tables. But this would say nothing really useful about how fast I could walk a mile with my WHOLE BODY IN MOTION.
CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are like fleas on a dog — fleas don’t have much effect on how fast or far the dog can run to fetch that tennis ball.
… and I’ll never get how CO2 is supposed to “trap heat” or “slow cooling”.
I don’t even get how CO2 is even supposed to facilitate warming of the molecules next to it. CO2 maybe can move radiation around a bit more efficiently from one place to another, like maybe on Venus, helping to channel radiation from the day side to the loooooooooooooong night side, and maybe help establish Venus’ consistent temperature across its whole globe all the time.
But where’s the heat it’s supposed to ADD ? Again, concise answer: IN DELUDED MINDS.
Robert, heyas how’s it going? Robert I know i MIGHT seem presumptive to tell you but you really, really, had to be around, when all this was cranking up, during a period starting about 25 years ago, then along came Fat Tony and the Magical Gaissiness is SOWND, SIGNTS, YaW!.
Bob my father was a policeman… then a little town marshal, then a police chief, then an I.R.S. enforcement agent.
When I was in the service I did a couple of years as a cop, there.
So I’ve seen some evil, just plain, no good mo***f***rs in my life do some low-down sh**.
And that’s just the guys at City Hall, not the criminals! LoL.
And when I tell you this, I have measured these words with great care: Watts is as evil as John the KooK Cook himself.
Maybe more. He POSES like he’s trying to HELP the integrity in science movement.
KooK and company at SKS were pasting their own faces onto the portraits of Nazis burning Russia down. They were happy they were burning science down when they did that pasting.
Watts is the snitch, the collaborator, who gathers the partisan resistance to his home to criticize the invading Nazis, then starts using his insider position to poison the entire community with horrific behavior against the VERY SCIENTISTS HE’LL NEVER become one OF, because he’s so f***g stupid,
and against the scientists he CLAIMED to be concerned about the integrity of science, WITH.
He’s an evil, evil, science molester. That’s all he is: a science molester. He’s figured out that his little land sensing projects gig is real, but that it’s got a life span, so he simply DEFECTED and started personally persecuting to the absolute MAXIMUM his MASS COMMUNICATIONS AUDIENCE MANIPULATION experience can provide,
every
single person
he can catch, ‘OUT’, and subject to MASS HARASSMENT
IN the science integrity movement.
Did you see what happened when he started whistling about how maybe he was gonna start an ‘education association’ to teach the world about the magnificance of the magical gassiness?
The man running the world’s LARGEST weather climate website had something like ZERO people join his association, after he asked for support for it on his OWN WEB SITE – for WEEKS not a PERSON signed up, if I recall right. I might be wrong Robert but I went to the page where he had some kinda sh** up on his grandiose plans to poison the earth with tales of how – yew noe,
cain’t but thim signtsie wunz, like him and Willis and uthur leat mindes, can understand about the
magical
gassiness, not a SOUL had joined his FAKE ‘education’ scam.
He’s a horrendous, evil, self seeking, self pitying, conscience-less pseud-science barking,
ANTI science,
TROLL.
Just like any other parasite profiteering off fraud: he cut himself out a little corner, and he TRIED to tell people about how – yew noe, cain’t nobody understand the magical gaissiness less’n thay has got GRATE MINDS, like him and willis,
and the readers, simply S.T.E.A.M.R.O.L.L.E.D. his STUPID ass, again,
and again,
and again,
and
again – every time he trotted that ludicrous shit out.
So after awhile, he finally just s.t.f.u. for the most part in public… but what he DID do was keep expanding his ‘list of bad things yew cain’t say abowt the magical gaissiness, and ”our friends” in fraud,
MANN
TRENBERTH
HANSEN
WIGLEY
BRIFFA
et all,
ad nauseum,
so that he can SURREPTITIOUSLY shoot scientific integrity through simply keeping people from discussing, REAL atmospheric chemistry.
All that ‘it’s soe suh fistikaydid yaW, YaW cain’t evun understand, yew aint seen thuh data!!’ is a COMPLETE
crock of SH**.
And all you have to be able to do, to discover just HOW much a crock of sh** it is,
is to
(1) learn about how the values for the International Standard Atmosphere are calculated, just as a general, personal task, to kinda… just go overview all that,
and then,
(2) – Read up on what Harry Huffman says regarding the calculation of gas temperatures, for atmospheres of planets. ALSO you should read the two posts by (all rise) Tony Heller (you may be seated) in HIS two posts on this very subject, named
Hyperventilating on Venus
and
Venus Envy –
most surprisingly these two threads are actually ON, Fat Tony’s WUWT website!
And – regarding Harry Huffman Robert, – Harry’s a physicist not a journalist, but – read his writings, on ‘No Green House On Venus’-
and then, since I know you’re the adventurer/reader, I can’t remember the name of his other posts on the SUBJECT of calculating atmospheric temperatures, but he’s got another couple of posts buried deep in his website named ‘The End of The Mystery- that are nothing short of riveting.
GAS MASS/ENERGY MECHANICS, is a VERY SIMPLE SCIENCE.
The REASON it’s so simple is that there are so many degrees of freedom: inflation/expansion, deflation/compression, not locking into crystal solid forms but remaining individual, sorta idealized-acting molecules – so the RULES SET for how they ACT
is quite SHORT.
Thus the MATHEMATICS of how gases act, is ALSO – quite short, and succint.
Anyway – thanks Joseph for entertaining my long posts, and also thanks everybody else for not being too critical of what I say.
There are going to be hundreds – HUNDREDS of kids, adults, who come by here through the years, and they simply will not be able to understand, WHY the F*** we let all this get out of HAND so bad.
People are ALREADY remarking in media, in interviews, this kinda thing, that – they don’t understand how the crap swept the planet.
It swept the planet because the world’s most ELEVATED scientific personnel were TELLING
every
single
person
IN ALL the WORLD
from KINDERGARTEN UP
that the 25 SPACECRAFT we have together sent to VENUS – 13 of them LANDING on it-
have
DISCOVERED
the GAS LAWS don’t WORK.
That is a BALD faced f8*king LIE without * read what I say yO * a SINGLE SYLLABLE of TRUTH.
If they DIDN’T
we couldn’t have ROBOTICALLY LANDED some 13 CRAFT on the SURFACE, REMOTELY,
using the – go FIGURE,
GAS LAW WRITTEN to DETERMINE TEMPERATURE, DENSITY, VOLUME, etc – to LAND those ROCKETS – craft around half the size of a voltswagon beetle in some cases.
It’s JUST not that complicated,
and you’re being CONNED, when you’re being TOLD it is.
Lemme ask you a question. I’m telling you it’s not very complicated,
the Magical Gassiness brigade SWEARS, thay got thim Holdur in ee kwaliteez, and awl thim big mathematical thangs, that – cain’t nobody understand less’n thay’z SIGNTSIE like..
Willis and Watts,
and I’m telling you, the e.n.t.i.r.e. s.c.i.e.n.t.i.f.i.c. establishment from the CHIEF of NASA GISS
to the KINDERGARTEN TEACHER in GERMANY
and in BOTSWANA
telling kids, SCIENTISTS DISCOVERED the GAS LAWS: the LAWS of PHYSICS are WRONG –
I’m telling you
THEY’RE
ALL
LYING and all you gotta do to check
is go READ
Hyperventilating on Venus
Venus Envy
and
The End of the Mystery: No Green House on Venus – by Harry Huffman.
And you’re gonna see Robert: those lying bastards are teaching people from KINDERGARTEN
to UNIVERSITY GRADUATION with MASTERS’ DEGREES,
that a COLD nitrogen bath is a HEATER
and that the
COLD
light blocking
PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERANTS
are the MAGIC, GianTiNY CORE
of the
cold nitrogen bath
that is uh… yew noe..
magical heedur.
YaW.
They’re LYING.
Every
Single
Syllable
they say
is a LIE.
And the reason I know this so well personally is because
I heard the entire, original scam, described in detail from the mouth of Hansen’s supervisor who was telling the entire world who would listen that HANSEN’S COMPUTER MODELS and none built on his teachings – they DO NOT HAVE
the LAW written for solving gases hence atmospheres’ temperatures,
ANYWHERE IN THEM.
Secondly, when I was a kid, my pop was a cop and my mom owned some ocean and freshwater and plant raising businesses where I personally grew up, as – an atmospheric chemist. I know it seems perhaps improbable but atmospheric and gas chemistry is NOT a complicated subject,
compared to many.
Anyway gotta go, but thanks for reading what I said and not being too mean for me saying it. Real scientists being too nice, is kinda how we all got IN this mess..
Peace
Love
Soul
and
non magical gassiness,
upon yas ALL!
LoL!
Later!
Great analogies Robert! Love the fleas on a dog! HA HA HA!
I gotta agree with the psych eval. The best thing about these people is that they’ve been trained to shit in a toilet.
Allen E.,
I’ve been tuned into Huffman for a few years, and I only now — six years after his blog started — had my first exchange with him. He’s not one to mince words, and I feel that I might have riled him a bit by pressing him on some details, but, hopefully, that was just a misunderstanding.
If I understand him correctly, Huffman seems to be convinced that planet atmospheres are warmed by DIRECT solar absorption, and that’s what I was pressing him to explain, given that nitrogen and oxygen, for example, are touted as having no such capability, yet they make up the bulk of Earth’s atmosphere.
So, the question is, “Does physics have this wrong ?” Is there an even more fundamental assumption that is wrong ? That’s the direction I was trying to nudge Huffman to address. Hopefully, he gets my drift, and won’t get all philosophically defensive on me in his signature, grandiose, confident style.
In case anybody is interested, here is my reply to Huffman:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2012/01/unified-climate-theory-iii.html?showComment=1518624919480#c6412436629000843067
Yeah, Robert, I saw him say that. That’s kinda weird for him to be wrong about that, but I’ve almost never in my life seen anyone be able to get all of physics right, it’s a creepy-level odd, isn’t it, the way that always pops up with people.
I’d imagine, that once Harry realized the atrociously incompetency in general atmospheric sciences, he decided to not let himself get emotionally sucked in, said whatever came off the top of his head the first time he ever spoke in public about it, and has that resilient capacity of a lot of hard sciences thinkers to simply decide he’s s.t.f.u. on that till next TIME, which’ll be – the next time he thinks about it.
His atmospheric mathematics are right. I remember somewhere along the line, RIGHT as Climategate came out, going all over the internet to see who, was pointing out the steps along the way to calculating the International Standard Atmosphere, and for awhile, there were some people sorta in a general orbit around what Harry discusses about calculating the temperatures.
See, that’s where you get them, is the math. They can’t fuglin calculate, the International Standard Atmosphere.
They come up, 33 degrees short.
And Huffman, can calculate a temperature for a planetary atmosphere, right.
I’ll tell ya another really interesting thing, about this buncha f***g frauds claiming thim phisicalisitiy laws, thay cain’t calkewlayte nunna thim gais timp urchurs, cawse thay.. thim laws ain’t signtsie, and this ain’t abowt no laws, anyway… YaW!”
The guy, who Tony Heller found out about first, so Tony says, was Mr BiLLIoNs & BILLioNS uh Stars,” or whatever he said – Carl Sagan,
being asked in – I guess it was… 1967,
Real scientists, not the math molester Schmidt, Mann, those trash, asked Sagan to give them an idea, of what he figured the temperature of Venus’ surface was.
They had a new radar profile of the atmosphere so they knew how deep it was.
Since they had the radar, and the orbit, and various other little tricks in yon scientific bag, they figured they really kinda knew about where the surface is,
and they figured they knew the general mass obviously becuause of the prev mentioned orbit.
Ok – this gives you gravitational pull, or weight, to this gas,
So, if the atmosphere’s XyZ thick, and yada yada, the temperature, at the surface, must be,
easily calculated. Well – Sagan did and they didn’t have really full info on the chemistry of the bath so they actually had their pressure wrong, because of forces out of their control, but – the mathematics remains the same, effectively, in all it’s essentials, they were just a little wrong about where the surface started, and the super-dense, re-liquified co2 on the surface was.
So – what the scoop is,
is that – N.A.S.A. published this paper;
and they didn’t critique it or go on about how the inside of a unicorn is so oddly like the placenta of a new black hole’s emotional profile, because these were real scientists, not Hansen on forward.
And – when you see him calculate the temperature and then go watch Tony Heller give his own kinda lowdown on it,
then,
you get to the point where Harry is repeatedly reminding you that this is all very simply answered by – ”why can’t you f***g hicks calculate the proper temperature of the International Standard Atmosphere?”
The paper Bob is in the Sept 1967 aeronautics journal or something like that, it’s like.. volume 37, ah sh** now I can’t remember and I’m out here without my home laptop…
I’ll find it if you go google Discus and Allen Eltor and 1967 Harvard Aerospace Journal or something like that, – I used to beat down dipsh**ts with that paper with all the joy of a child running a chihuhua away from his sandwich with a big ol fly swatter.
See Bob what it all comes down to is they leave out the hydrostatic equation, where the gas law assigns the pressure warming, all gases have, when they’re sucked down against he surface of a sphere.
F**g hicks talking about how ‘thim gaises ain’t got nair walls, ‘n whut not, so thay cain’t be all pressurdficaydid up ‘fernin’st thay selves, like uh buncha nerds in uh elevator or somethin, thim ain’t got nairy touchin’isms against nuthin! …. f*cking hicks….
when you pull all the gases down against the finite area of a spherical, global surface, all the air molecules pressing against each other, are PRECISELY what stop them from being about to slip out from UNDER, the ones ABOVE – so – obviously, the pressurization argument is the self-sh**ting, shirt-front drooling looptardism only an idiot who thought a cold nitrogen bath is a heater could think.
The gases can’t slip to the side in any direction because there are other identical air molecules being pulled down by the identical gravity pulling the example molecules down… they are all pulled down together and this is what makes f***g flour stop sifting down out of a funnel.
The hicks who believe in that stupid sh** can’t even fathom why things are trapped when falling through funnel shaped, cone shaped geometries. ”I cain’t figure owt why thay’z awl jammin tuh gethur!”
So anyway Robert the part about what Harry goes way into discussion about calculations of gas temperatures related to atmospheres, – did you personally ever get to go through a bunch of his posts, on the OTHER threads ? man.. I went in there a few times and read whatever he was going on about and once in awhile he gets on a kick about explaining – where the MATHS all intersect perfectly when you calculate gas temperatures instead of just – fucking purely – practice fraud…
it’s very much an aid in seeing how universal the mathematical prohibitions are, when you see someone simply going on at length about it in various contexts, of different environments, answering diff questions with people, this kinda thing.
Maybe it was just me.
But yeah I certainly see what you’re saying about the warming not coming as much from the top and I’m sure you’re right, it’s a fairly well known thing, I think he’s one of those old school physicists who … sometimes people who are hard core math and physicists combined, – well – it’s EXACTLY like Joseph says, they often are able to react to word problems posed, in an autistic way because their level of function in the math world a lot, – it really kinda reduces a lot of peoples’ societally normal curiosity, …I mean you know how that is..
Anyway, I’ll try to go look through my own Discus remarks where I’m spitting on magical gassers and get the paper Tony Heller talked about perking up his interest in this.
Oh also Robert in Hellers’ posts please see where at that time physicist Lubos Motl came by and TROLLED Heller, saying ”I’m going to debunk you ;)”
then going to his own place, and agreeing that – no, HE was wrong, the laws of physics ARE real, the gas laws written FOR gas matter/energy relationships DO calcualate gas temperatures right, and there is NO
radiative
grean howse
warmin. YaW.
LoLoLoL
peace I’ll try to find that paper it’s the Harvard astrophysics journal, September, 1967, pages 730-731, Bob.
See if that works, I have to run, me and the wife are running around with our son and his grandson.
Peace scientists, physicists, students, etc.
All magic gas barking maggots can choke out on a mouth full of vomit.
Allen E.,
I always seem to pick up new words for my vocabulary, when I wade through your long “commentainment” (I just made that one up by combining “commentary” and “entertainment”)
Today’s word, for me, was … looptardism — whose definition, I venture, would go something like this: a state of mental deficiency brought on by practicing and promoting circular reasoning. To argue by looping that which is to be proved to that which is assumed, a priori. (^_^)
You guys are awesome! lol 🙂
.. found this:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1
Yes SiR, Robert- “commentainment” Great ‘new eord’ msm I love word jokes, and making up commentainment terms: one of my own that i made up is a “manipulopath’ ..
People can be seen ‘manipulopathing’ their way through a situation..
etc.
also, “therm-0-billy” with a zero in the middle..
Anyway im ptetty sure itscthe Harvard Astrophysics Journal, Sept 1967 pages 730-731… and it’s issue 49 or something like that..
It is very, very important we dont frighten young people getting into stamping out this HORRENDOUS fucking fraud so I always try to talk about it in such way that someone watching can understand it’s gonna pay him to just learn about what this is: gas matter-energy mechanics.
Gas matter-energy mechanics are the SIMPLEST phase of matter.
And the government scammers are DELIBERATELY painting gas mechanics as complex.
Gas matter energy relationships have the SIMPLEST principles governing them – not the most complex
Later Joseph, glad you’re entertained and happy to see us
talking about it!
It’s grandson chasing season for us lately!
Oh YEAH the Jonathan Gero paper! Freakin incredible the way the scammers hide from that revealing and unquestionable paper!
IT’S N.O.A.A.’s OWN PAPER!
Anyway good night guys ill get a link to that N.A.S.A. paper written by Carl Sagan who BELIEVED in potential for magical gassiness, yet –
calculated Venusian Atmospheric temperature,
using proper – SIMPLE – gas matter/energy mathematics.
manipulopath, Noun, A person who attempts to manipulate reasoning, using twisted logic, faulty physics, and unsound verbal gymnastics, in order to maintain allegiance to a certain point of view at all costs.
therm-0-billy, Noun, A person whose reasoning about thermodynamics is as backward and unrefined as a hillbilly, as if relying on superstitions and folklore, with zero proper learning.
I see that Robert Holmes is still putting up the fight at WUWT, despite that he was almost banned there a few days ago.
I’ve been trying to find studies that actually measure trends in down-welling, long-wave radiation from Earth’s atmosphere, and, I can’t seem to find any. Why is that? Is this not something that instruments can measure? Why no instrumental data sets over the years? Why is this seemingly not a standard data set, like global average temperature anomaly?
If CO2 causes more of this stuff, then why haven’t we been keen on measuring it? I don’t get it. Am I missing something?
There is a reason why Robert…….., can you figure it out?
Well, either downwelling radiation is unreal, in the sense that climate alarmists portray it, or, if it IS measurable and IS measured, then the measurements fail to agree with the alarmists’ narrative. As indicated earlier above, I found ONE study, and it seemed NOT to support the narrative.
Am I close ?
… late to the game, I guess, I also just found these:
Click to access EE20-1_Hertzberg.pdf
Click to access Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
Whatever the answer, I still cannot get over how global average near-surface AIR temperature is anywhere near the same category of measurement as the average PLANETARY temperature figured THIS way:
… two completely different “averages”, … wrongly compared, … as though they were representing the same metric.
How have “experts” been allowed (and continue to be allowed) to do this ?!
IR can make molecules dance IN PLACE (vibrate, rotate, stretch), but what determines how close they are to pass on their momentum to other molecules? What makes them move? Gravity. And that’s why we have an adiabatic lapse rate. Warmists are simply gravity deniers, Full Stop. We need to inform the psychiatric community so they can place warmists into a new DSM “gravity denier” category.
P.S. youtube 1000frolly = Robert Holmes. His paper links to
http://icecube.wisc.edu/pole/weather , a link I gave him on this site! It can’t be a coinicidence.
Hope y’all doing well 🙂
I don’t think warmists are gravity deniers. I think that they are container-wall obsessives. My brief impression is that they have a mental block trying to conceive of a gravitational-compression effect without solid walls in the picture somehow.
A group of molecules next to another group of molecules, being pulled in by gravity, IS like a wall. And the weight of the entire atmosphere squishing down and around to press those molecules together IS like a wall. It’s not solid, but the effect of pressing together happens all around the circumference of the globe. There’s no place for any gas molecules to squish out of to escape that gravitational pull, and so they squish closer together in relation to one another.
And back to the black body thing: A recent insight that I gleaned from some paper I read somewhere (I forgot which one) is that radiation does NOT magically stop its effect at the surface skin of the planet — there’s some heating of the Earth BELOW the surface, and this takes time to dissipate, apart from what the ideal black-body mathemagical incantations impart on gullible minds.
The ground and water have heat capacity that has a TIME factor to consider. That’s partly why nights are above outer-space temperature — the heat takes time to dissipate, and before it does, we are continually approaching a sunlit side again. On the sunlit side, instead of being blazing hot, this same heat capacity is “dealt with” by the cooling layers of the upper atmosphere, in such a way that the Goldilocks ground temp is “just right” for life to flourish.
The molecules can’t escape gravity, but the sun does cause them to expand and lose their specific gravity, so that colder molecules above are “swapped” with them. So we have convection mediated conduction. This is what warmists avoid. They like to think that GHGs are tiny heaters that power the atmosphere. In any case, I feel it’s still gravity denial. Scientists in the 21st century denying gravity … how absurd. All that ground and water really does “retain” and spread whatever energy it managed to absorb. co2 is the froth of the froth of your coffee. The froth has no effect on the coffee. It doesn’t keep it warm.
Yeah, it’s gravity denial, straight f***n up. Good call there.
Yeah Robert, there’s definitely some light pinging off the air on the way out. But that light is already taken into account when the planetary temperature is calculated properly, as per solving for the International Standard Atmosphere, and as per Harry Huffman’s expose’ on that situation.
The reason they can’t match the international standard atmosphere is because they refuse to solve for the compression warming intrinsic to compressible phase matter. That matter, is STILL much colder than the planet overall, which is why,
even after gravitational compression warming IS properly accounted, the Standard Atmosphere proves to be many degrees colder, on average, than the planet surface, itself.
It’s.. it’s exactly what Afro is saying: it’s gravity denial… and you can STOP – A.N.Y. of them on a DIME by simply pointing out that – we KNOW the CORRECT way to calculate a temperature, it’s HOW we HAVE the international standard, the ‘International Standard Atmosphere.’
When YOU engage in mathematics and come up with a different answer than the OFFICIAL answer, and the OFFICIAL answer is THE calibrational and regulatory standard for entire realms of humanity’s existence – your reference temperature, is shown to be correct by the fact instruments can be correctly calibrated against it.
When you get the WRONG answer, YOU have come up, with the w.r.o.n.g. answer to a MATH question and – that’s proof on the spot, something’s wrong.
They are PERFECTLY vulnerable to this because in mathematics there’s no EXCUSE – for having a DIFFERENT answer than the RIGHT one… and as said above, that right one is WELL known to be CORRECT.
They CAN’T
both BE correct.
It’s JUST that simple.
And the PRECISE amount they’re wrong is the difference in the compression warming: 33 degrees.
It’s why they also claim the ”Grean hows uh feckt is muchly, muchly bigger on Venus than Earth.”
That’s because the COMPRESSION of all that WEIGHT of all that gas, creates a warmer temperature. Just – period, end of their bullshit, it’s JUST that simple… and every time you wander away from that,
you
are
BECOMING
the scam.
Talk about anything BUT the most obvious direct proof it’s wrong, and you are helping them ”keep everybody talking” while they simply falsify records and STEAL, and announce FAKE atmospheric ‘science’ has determined that…
yew noez – the cold nitrogen bath conduction scrubbing the planet is uh… big ol giant heedur,
and the
cold
light blocking
phase change refrigerant gases, namely WATER –
is the
GianTiny core
of the
cold nitrogen bath
that is
magically…
uh.. heedur.
It’s ludicrous from the very first word, to the last.
The green house gases – again – WATER – stop 20% of otherwise available warming spectra from the sun,
from ever even joining in Earth’s physical and mathematical systems.
This 20% reduction is – off the top – a 20% reduction in surface energy density. Cooling.
You can’t put a can of beer into a cold bath conduction scrubbing energy from it,
out in the sun,
and then put refrigerants into the bath, that make 20% less sunlight reach and warm the beer,
and have that reduction in surface energy density, be – warming.
The nitrogen bath is cold,
the green house gases, as part of it are cold,
and they stop light from reaching the surface ever – at all – any chart of sunlight top of atmosphere vs mean sea level shows ONE class gases, reducing the surface energy density of the planet by 20%.
The green house gases do that. Carbon dioxide does a small amount of that cooling, water creates the vast majority of the refractive losses.
Oxygen giving us blue sky daylight conditions, also reduces the surface energy density a SMALL amount but it’s trivial compared to the losses shown on ALL charts as CAUSED by the
cooling
green house gases.
Water, furthermore, is a phase-change refrigerant – that’s initially cold so even as a single phase gas, it’s conduction chilling the planet,
and then as phase change refrigerant, it cools not just the surface wherever it falls, forms, and evaporates off – but it also phase change refrigerates the lower nitrogen bath as well – when water is rising, falling in convection driven phase-change storm cells, the water rises, lends energy to nearby nitrogen/oxygen, and also radiates some to space, till it cools to water.
This condensing causes the water to fall far, FAR faster than if it remained a single phase gas…
and it also
reverts to vapor, again and again – 25, 35 times in just a typical thunderhead, a storm cloud, as it cools… falls, and encountering upward rising, warmth, reverts to vapor again… rises swiftly, cools to ice again, and this cycle happens again and again.
This is nothing more nor less than phase change refrigeration of the lower atmospheric bath, the troposphere.
All the ”yayuh but.. yayuh but.. yew ain’t signtsie, yew ain’t evun Climatie” is VERY rapidly silenced when you refuse to leave these fundamental tenets, and be dragged into bullshit country.
One of the things I was trying to point out to you guys, just for something to do, is that – well – you guys came over and kinda pissed on their cheerios without me having to do much, but – you guys saw me go over to what’s his name’s place and challenge him and anybody there to even name the gas law responsible for solving gas temperatures.
Not ONE of them could do it. One of them MENTIONED it and suggested it MIGHT be the Ideal Gas Law – but on a site where they claim to be ”always gittin sighntsie, and climitie, and awl like that” – the mufus that OWNED the place couldn’t tell us WHAT the name of the LAW is that governs solving of atmospheric temperatures.
Midnight Cowboy Willis is in the same ignorant f***g boat. The fact he claims that there is some ”accounting” that need be done AFTER you properly calculate global atmospheric temperature, is proof that he’s nothing more nor less than a bullsh***ng f***g SCAMMER.
There IS no ‘calculation of the magical grean hows gassiness whut dun made it awl hoddurn’hoddur’n it should be.’
There’s NO such f***g thing, a.n.y.w.h.e.r.e. in calculation of any global atmospheric temperature, or of temperature of any volume of gas.
”But thim ideal gais law, it cain’t solve fur thim magical hoddurn’hoddurisms” is pure, classical, Willis Eschenbach, mentally ill street musician, talking sh** out of his “I have a vocational certificate as a massage therapist” hole.
This is why Watts and Willis, are so combative – to EVERYONE. You’re NOT going to tell them the laws of physics are real, and that they solve gas temperatures just fine, they’ll curse you till the DAY they DIE, before they’ll allow it.
Because they’re both, a couple of science destroying scammers.
When GROWN f***g MEN
are telling people the LAW of physics WRITTEN to solve temperatures of some phase matter,
can’t calculate temperatures of that phase matter – they’re beyond wrong, they’re fraudulent buffoons.
It can’t be stressed enough that every single syllable of the ENTIRE story about how ”the atmusfear is uh big ol’ heedur, and the core of the heedur is thim grean hows gaisses”
is just
plain
f***g
falsehood.
Every syllable of it’s falsehood.
You can start a.n.y. where you want,
and due to this type scam being known as an ‘inversion scam’ – inverting important values early on, pretending no one can see that, and proceeding as per norm – no matter WHERE the F**** you START,
within just a couple of sentences, YOU will have ARRIVED at one of the NEVER ending INVERSIONS of VALUE that MUST take place when a FRAUD defends, INVERSION scams.
Because honest people trying to get to the core of the situation, invariably find the PREVIOUS inversion – and point out that it’s incorrect – so the scammer must create YET ANOTHER inversion,
in order to perpetuate the myth, that – in this case – the cold nitrogen bath, shading then conduction chilling the light-warmed rock,
is a giant magic heater.
So… my own comment has kind of rambled through the brambles regarding the fraudulent bullshi** story about the magical gassiness making a cold nitrogen bath intwo uh… big ol heedur” but that’s just my way of making comment about the totality of the erroneous of the e.n.t.i.r.e. f***g claim.
It’s the SAME church
It’s the SAME tactics
that told the entire planet – the PLANET – and made them all create laws agreeing, that –
yew noez
thim pots is like heroin. Thay’s uh GATE way to heroin.
No, those f***g opiates and opiods are THE gateway to heroin.
And yet you have laws in something like 80 countries
And yet you have people having had their entire families, their own lives, broken: even MURDERED
because guvurmint signts has dun discuvured that thim pots, at tair cannabis, is like heroin.
Bullshit. Bull f***g sh** it is,
and the cold nitrogen atmospheric bath, conduction scrubbing the planet, 24/7/365.25
is not a ‘giant magical heedur’
and the cold, light blocking refrigerants, aren’t the GianTiny core – of said magic heater.
Anyway I’m out on that… best of luck to all of you wondering just wtF has gotten into the scientific establishment worldwide.
What’s gotten into it is pure fraud, poured out on their heads from the very tip top pinnacles of alleged, scientific capability and integrity: the world’s climate organizations.
The heads of which, as we all saw so clearly in Climategate, were and are engaged in stupendous fraud, with G.I.S.S. itself being the world’s largest, monolithic scientific research organization.
The money that goes through there is astonishing and the men seeing it go by – Hansen and his computer programmer fraud friends – wanted their cut, and they started taking it. And when Al Gore’s movie HIGHLIGHTED said work,
they went into triple overtime trying to scurry to cover the fraud, cover their tracks, cover their own political reputations.
These are men who WERE and ARE telling CHILDREN that the LAWS of PHYSICS are WRONG: and that there has been discovered on Venus, a magical gassiness that makes it MUCH hotter than the law of physics written to determine that gas volume’s temperature, says it should be.
Utter, complete, bullshit. Again: AGAIN: See Tony Heller’s two threads, Hyperventilating on Venus, and Venus Envy,
then go watch Harry Huffman discuss this exact same thing: HOW the FAKERY about VENUS’ temperature, is DONE.
((Peace Love & Soul, scientists, students, mathematicians, physicists, etc))
Well, I guess I could be called a “gravity denier” too, BUT for a different reason. You see, I think that the word, “gravity” is just a manner of categorizing our perceptions — I do not think that gravity is a real “force”. Heck, I don’t know if I really believe in “forces” either.
I think it’s all fluid motion and pressure-like phenomenon all the way down, so to speak. But, that being said, I think “gravity” is a good practical way to talk about stuff, and I still doubt the “gravity” denying of alarmists. Rather, they are more gravity-avoiding, when it comes to explaining climate issues.
How do you know a die-hard alarmist believes in gravity? ANSWER: the weight of his/her ego — without that, they could not stay grounded.
The Sun is also adding to the surface compression with its solar wind.
Sunset…,
I think maybe solar wind might be getting into a different category of “pressure” — photon pressure ? … as opposed to gas pressure ? — I’m not sure. That’s probably why “gravity” is a good way to keep the different categories and subcategories of our perceptions better separated.
Sorry for the typo above, but i said in a convection driven storm cell, the water evaporates, rises, lends energy to nearby cold nitrogen and oxygen, and condenses, to WATER.
That’s incorrect and it doesn’t hurt to straighten it out. The water thus cooled, condenses to ICE.
As far as the speed of one falling, vs the other, there might not be much diff, but it’s definitely a typo.
Water that evaps from the surface and it’s associated features, turns to vapor obviously, rises and cools, and as it cools thus condensing to ice, it falls to the ground a lot faster than if it remained a single phase vapor – AND, this falling ice, falling downward again through the cell, the storm, is turned back to vapor repeatedly: vapor rising, ice falling, sublimating back to vapor. This goes on again and again, during any given storm cell’s lifespan, and this rise/fall/rise/fall/rise/fall continues through many, many cycles.
So.. that typo where I typed that it turns to water, and falls back down, is just wrong. I mean… lol obviously it’s still water in some sense but written that way it immediately lends to the mind that we’re talking liquid, and that’s not really the scoop.
As many badly – nay horribly edited posts as I put up, I should be forced to get like a leopard spot tattoo, for every typo and grammatical answer, and when I’m all covered up just be made to join the circus, and sit on a stool as an exhibit as the ”incredible leopard man.
Remember kids, when some government employee tells you magic made a cold nitrogen bath a magical heater,
these are the same people who jailed, shot, murdered, beat, broke, ruined, maligned and destroyed the lives of – *COUNT EM*
M.I.L.L.I.O.N.S.
of American
then -doubling down on pure f***g evil,
attacked identically, millions,
WORLD WIDE,
of perfectly honest, normal citizens, because – and I quote from the magical literature,
”At ‘tair pot’s like heroin, son, that’s why heroinajuana and marajuana sound the same, they are almost the same stuff.
It’s worse fur yew than uh.. methyl amphetamine habit! That’ sh**t’s the devil’s lettuce, uh…GAIT WAYE to HEROIN! YaW!”
RK,
You can check info on Solar Wind on Wikipedia if you like. The pressure is nominally negligible for matters under discussion here I think (nPa- tiny little bit).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
Re:Gravity- If you have access to a physics lab there is a fun experiment to calculate G (the gravitational constant) via experiment. I did this in HS in around 30 yrs ago. JP may know the name of the experiment I am referring to, I can’t recall it of the top of my head. I wonder sometimes if any of these experimental things are even taught anymore. Can’t have people using critical thinking to understand the constructs of modern science, that’d be horrific letting people think for themselves.
Feel the radiation from the sun? That’s the same force that keeps us revolving around the sun. Sun tries to steal our atmosphere, Earth fights back. Lots of heat generated in the process. Too simple? I hope so. Sun-Planets = homopolar motor. Sun has most of the mass, while planets have most of the angular momentum. It takes two to tango.
I saw this one yesterday. Slightly OT but worth a look.
MIT research:
http://news.mit.edu/2018/system-draws-power-daily-temperature-swings-0215
Fun. Probably cost an arm and a leg. Maybe could be used for specialized remote sensing applications if the material costs can be managed (probably not- unless special military app). I wonder if they used Carnot formulas to design it. Not sure if the “whole cloth” commentary is legit outside of the materials development. Sounds like a super fancy Carnot engine to me. PR people always fubar the truth. Note: I didn’t see any usage of the infamous magical gases in their device.
“thermal effusivity”
… and I was just now getting a grip on emissivity.
UNBELIEVABLE !
Click to access gases.pdf
… and I quote:
“While nitrogen and oxygen comprise 99% of the atmospheric gases, they have little effect on atmospheric processes and consequently little to no effect on weather or climate. The gases which make up far less than 1 percent of the atmosphere have a much greater influence on both short-term weather and long-term climate.”
Comments ?
Well, obviously Bob if the overall temperature is the general climate, your nitrogen/oxygen bath have a WHOLE lot to do with it, because their presence, in the amounts they are there, create the VAST majority of the atmosphere’s capability of assuming any overall temperature profile.
A cold nitrogen bath, is a cold nitrogen bath… period. If the cold nitrogen bath was as dense as the one that’s on Venus of course, some 93 atmospheres’ pressure or whatever, the entire thing would be a whole lot hotter.
Again, I know I sound like a broken record, reflect on the writings of Sagan/Tony Heller in Hyperventilating on Venus/Venus Envy, and Harry Huffman, regarding how an atmospheric temperature is properly calculated.
You’ll note also that the (no longer works for) Harvard Physicist Lubos Motl, the guy who trolled Tony over at Magic Gas Tony’s place, when he said “yadaYada, I’m going to debunk you 😉 ”
Motl is in agreement with Sagan, Heller (Heller blogs under the pseudonym Steve Goddard for those of you who don’t know who he is, you really need to go to his place and check out what he says about government employees fabricating – that’s falsely fabricating out of thin air so to speak, all the warming in the 20th century) and with Huffman about the correct way to calculate the temperature of the atmospheres of Earth, Mars, Venus, etc…
These gases set the fundamental temperature profile for planet earth via their overall mass/volume/density parameters – related of course to the gravitational pull on them…
The cold nitrogen bath with the oxygen in it is *the only thing you calculate when establishing the temperatures of these atmospheres – trace gases, these minute percentile additives, aren’t even considered.
And remember – we’re not talking about JUST Sagan, JUST N.A.S.A who HIRED Sagan to calculate his estimated temperature of Venusian surface – not JUST Heller and JUST Huffman,
you’re talking about the string of calculations that ultimately give rise to the International Standard Atmosphere, which was adopted worldwide in nineteen twenty – first accurately assessed by the FRENCH,
in the mid 1860s – 1864 if I recall correctly… these values are the underlying physical, calibration, regulatory values that govern all our instruments, all our aerospace and aviation equipment, – everything we manufacture or warranty on the planet that creates or measures heat, back there somewhere the International Standard Atmosphere that was first correctly derived by the French in the mid 1860s to further accuracy in their pioneering of baloon flight – it governs all this.
We KNOW these values are correct. We KNOW they REMAIN correct – the mathematical processes – on Mars, on Venus, because we’ve robotically, remotely, landed craft there which are the size of automobiles – dozens of them. Well. A dozen and more of them – we’ve LANDED them remotely, robotically so to speak, USING the very calculations that helped us derive the I.S.A.
So – what you’re reading there at the N.A.S.A. G.I.S.S. website is kinda just plain bullshit.
The water of course, it creates local temperature variations, but overall, the water is slave to the general conditions established by the parameters of the overall nitrogen bath.
So – that’s my story and I’m sticking to it, and I know I seem like a broken record but the fact is, this is all very, very simple. The nitrogen bath sets up the basic parameters and the water’s slave to those parameters’ controlling values.
I’m trying to think of whether there’s anything I can say that will make me sound LESS like yon fractured, phonographical recording medium. Alas, no.
Anyway Robert, Afro, ((Joseph)) and everybody, peace on you guys and take care, I’m gonna go enjoy the snowstorm that’s blowing in to Calfiornia tonight, it’s blowin’ an’ goin’ about now, yO, and it’s gonna be a lovely, lovely sprinkling of chilled-to-solid-phase,
greenhouse gassiness, lasting as far as I know deep into the night here on Thursday March 1 2018.
I know it’s kinda boring and I seem to have so little imagination about all this when I write about it but ya know …. – it’s really, really important that we don’t leave the future students and even teachers you guys – goodness knows WHO in the world is, has, WILL be getting their clue about how fake all this ”Magical Gaissiness dun turnt thuh cold nitrugin bath, intwo uh.. big oL GianTiny Magical Headur!” scam, really is, from watching what we’re all saying here.
And when I say to you guys that almost every single f***g syllable of it is as FAKE as my ex girlfriends’s… nevermind… it’s FAKE.
The cold nitrogen bath isn’t a heater, the minute quantity of greenhouse gases serving as phase-change refrigerants aren’t a giantiny magical CORE of the – magically uh headur cold nitrogen bath, it’s just plain all f***g fake.
For what it’s worth, for several years before the scam was revealed by an insider to be nothing more than a giant grants farming scam when he released that thousand emails between the frauds,
Hansen, the father of this giant scam, who taught all his programmer friends how to scam government grants by using government super-computers to lend an air of authenticity to their fraudulent scribblings,
was ALL OVER youtube, simply explaining to everyone exactly how the scam worked, exactly why he got onto the heating thing – it was because nobody would fund anything reality based any more in applied physics,
and I used to watch those videos and think about how it’s all there in living color as he explained how he came to be who he was, to interviewers, etc… today, I expect there’s very little of that sh** still up on Youtube.
I first got the clue-in that all Hansen’s shit’s fake from his supervisor whom I heard being interviewed by a PBS jr. reporter in 1980… the recording was played on PBS, right before Hansen and Math Molester Mann were set to go commit fraud and lie to Congress. I was in electronic engineering school working a day job in a plant nursery, trying to keep my wife and daughter a roof over our heads by working days out there in the hot sun, pulling weeds and shoveling sand, going to my classes at night
Again Peace guys! Ciao!
“While nitrogen and oxygen comprise 99% of the atmospheric gases, they have little effect on atmospheric processes and consequently little to no effect on weather or climate. The gases which make up far less than 1 percent of the atmosphere have a much greater influence on both short-term weather and long-term climate.”
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
They make up 99% of the atmosphere, get pushed around by wind, compresses the surface with their significant molecular mass, can absorb energy by many collisions with each other.
Meanwhile it is “yellow light” that does the most to warm the earth, NOT IR/Co2 stuff:
“Visible light from the sun (0.4 – 0.7 µm): • provides most of the energy that keeps Earth warm • affects the distance we can see • affects the colors in the atmosphere • our vision peaks at 0.55 µm, which is near the sun’s peak radiation intensity (Wien’s law) ”
and,
“Gas absorption: Gases selectively absorb radiation in different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Ozone, molecular oxygen, and molecular nitrogen are most important for absorbing UV radiation and preventing this from reaching the surface of the Earth. Other gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) or nitric acid (HNO3) also absorb UV radiation, but their mixing ratios are too low to have much of an effect on the amount of UV light reaching the surface. The only gas that absorbs visible radiation sufficiently to affect visibility is nitrogen dioxide (NO2).”
Thunderstorms inject N2 into the rain via lightning, which is an atmospheric process.
What I found so unbelievable about that GOVERNMENT … EDUCATIONAL link for STUDENTS … is that the GOVERNMENT is signing off on bullshit, mindf***k propaganda in the guise of an “educational guide” — a guide that whoever wrote it (I guess, as part of their assigned job) felt more than comfortable denying the reality of 99% of Earth’s atmospheric mass, AND feeling okay about TEACHING … YOUNG PEOPLE … to deny 99% of Earth’s entire atmospheric mass !! (Yeah, I put a double exclamation point there — do you blame me?)
This is the epitome of abuse of authority and abuse of trust in people who are supposed to be leaders and teachers (excuse me, while I take a moment to laugh hysterically).
IGNORE 99% of Earth’s entire atmospheric mass, kiddies. Do it, because I’m your teacher, and I know the facts. Trust me, kiddies, less than one percent of Earth’s ENTIRE ATMOSPHERIC MASS controls the climate. It’s written here on a government publication, and so this has GOT to be right, kiddies.
You’d think the person who wrote this shit would have reflected for a moment on the integrity of what they were writing, … and maybe asked their supervisor, “Can I really write this?” Can I really put this out there as EDUCATIONAL? Can I get away with denying 99% of Earths ENTIRE ATMOSPHERIC MASS?
But no, this piece-of-shit of an educational guide was allowed to go forth as is.
I wonder why they didn’t have an accompanying publication saying something like, “100% of Earth’s incoming energy comes from the sun, but it has virtually no effect on heating the atmosphere, because the cold nitrogen bath (if I may borrow from Alan) does all that heating. The sun is just up there lookin’ purdy. Oh, and forget ever seeing snow again, you little bastards, because even if some white frozen stuff DOES happen to fall, it is evil now, and we don’t call it ‘snow’ anymore — we call it ‘climastrophic phase-change crystals’ or ‘CPCC’ for short, since human-caused global warming by magic gas is the driver.”
Okay, that’s enough ranting for now. Just unbelievable !
Lmao Robert, climastrophical phase change crystals! I had been typing on my cell phone, trying to get up a short apology for the – really, mild typo, in my last post above where I referred to “these atmospheres” and it comes out looking like I’m referring to all these different rocky planets’ atmospheres being of Earth mix composition, and when I hit publish, it didn’t come up. (Cell phone, it might not ever come up) .. I looked and realized you’d been writing about the same time I had been, and I thought… “I wonder if Robert’s gonna say something about wondering if Allen EVER s.’s the F uP”…
I was going along there reading yoru post and busted out HOWLING laughing, I’m glad I got up today LoL! I wish I had said that myself!
About the only thing I woulda put differently is that – most people say “Climastrophical” and I tend to write “Climatastrophological” LoL…
Hilarity itself, Robert, and you’re damned right you should be outraged. Hey listen – these no good thieving, lying, science destroying mo****kers have been telling EVERYONE from
GRADE school to UNIVERSITY graduation, that the laws of physics for solving temperatures of gases, DON’T WORK on VENUS: and that it’s hundreds of times “Hoddurn’Hoddur’n it shuld bea, YaW!”
You go to ANY school ANY where – from a grade school to middle school to Jr College to universities, ANYWHERE in the Western world, and you’ll find PHYSICS and SCIENCE teachers telling people that the temperature of Venus is many times hotter than scientists predicted it WOULD be… in other words that the LAW of PHYSICS written to determine that VERY thing, SAYS it should be.
Myself I’m kinda known for my disrespectful attitude to these evil bastards. People like the high school diploma packing, college dropout ”Meatie Urologist” Magic Gais Tony Watts, the mentally ill street musician and vocational massage certificate holder Willis “It dun give owt moar in ur gie than it’sa MAKIN’ Eschenbach, of the “Steel Shells of sTuPiD” fame,
Criminal and socio-psychopath James Hansen, Math Molester Mann, Trembling Kevin Trenberth, but – it’s nothing more nor less than teaching little children that the laws of physics, aren’t REAL.
A cold nitrogen bath, conduction chilling a light-warmed rock, is uh… big Ol Giant, magic heedur, and the cold, light blocking phase change refrigerants, are the GianTiNy CORE of the cold nitrogen bath that’s a big ol giant heedur,
and these no good mo****ers have people staring DIRECTLY into CHARTS: of sunlight, top of atmosphere vs at mean sea level, with the cooling green house gases listed as the
SOLE
class of gases
REDUCING surface energy density by count-em TWENTY percent, and
“Thay’s uh… makin this ol’ plan it uv owurs, 33 dugreaze, hoddurn’hoddur’n it wulda bin, if’n it wern’t fur thim magical gaissinesses, YaW!!”
Hey – listen – go check it out, bro – I sh** you not one whit, people who graduate from the public school system, do so,
THIRTY PERCENT behind HOME-SCHOOLED, dino-riding, high-top, lace-up shoe, long-sleeves-only, Christian fundies from Arkansas.
They graduate THIRTY percent behind those people,
in
every
single
educational metric,
EVER devised, to CONCEAL that fact.
They graduate behind Parochial schoolers, behind private schoolers, behind HOME schoolers.
Nearly a FULL third. It’s the NATURE of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. They’re naturally, thieves, because there’s no oversight, ANYWHERE.
They constitute a separate RELIGION, unto THEMSELVES. Government employees, basically, are a RELIGION: a religion of humanist secularism.
Any time you look at some powerful religion, the Abrahamic/Adamic ones are really the main ones in this – Judaism, Islam, Christianity – now – inculde government employees in this for sake of illustration of my point – they ALL have a lot of things in common.
They’re CONTROL freaks.
They’re SURE that THEIR authority is somehow SPECIAL. It’s not to be argued with because after all, they’ve brought us all THIS far…
They’re MASTERS at PROPAGANDIZING CHILDREN and they SPECIALIZE in it.
They have COMMANDMENTS associated with keeping people under control, and being AUTHORITY worshippers.
They demand that EVERYBODY ELSE PAY them – not to work, or produce something but to “be smarter than you” and “Explain to you how you had better lead your life.”
They have their OWN INTERNAL COURT SYSTEM where they do all they can to stop outsiders from influencing their decisions and their disciplines.
Years of indoctrination are required to become part of the inner circle.
THINKING they’re above the laws of PHYSICS themselves.
EVERYONE ELSE is a USURPER of some HIGHER, HOLY CALLING. Government employees DESPISE private schools. They DESPISE home schooling. Just like RELIGIONS DESPISE those who convert to some other lifestyle or method.
The other day I saw some despicable, beady-eyed government employee teacher, sitting there weighing about 350 pounds, big jowls hanging down, shitty haircut, dressed like a slob – talking about how – she didn’t want to think about a gun, see a gun, TOUCH a gun she just wanted to “do her job” … now… think about this.
What kind of a f***g pervert, will sit there and tell another adult human being that they want to hang around children all day, and not really have any responsibility for disciplining those children, not have any responsiblity for making sure the job they do is competently supervised so that if people come out of their dungeon of dumbassedness, they are completely held to be responsibility free in that – and that furthermore they think it’s reprehensible that they should have to be adult enough to PROTECT those children.
Even a f***g meerkat, or whatever you call those little animals – when one of them is in charge of the juveniles – even an ANIMAL that is overseeing a batch of juvenile units – it’ll fight for em. That’s about half the reason they’re even there.
Only government employees can somehow get the ENTIRE PLANET aligned so that
EVERY BODY has to obey the law that “pot is like heroin” – saying it ISN’T as a CHILD is grounds for being THROWN OUT of their SCIENTIFIC EDUCATIONAL facilities
EVERY BODY has to obey the law that “you give us your kids or else” – in the United States and I’m sure in some other countries they’ve failed to completely enact that but they NEVER stop trying – you should read the stories about people in California and some other states in the U.S. where people want to home school their children – it’s INSANE the way government employees treat them like – basically – THEY are one step from CRIMINALS
EVERY BODY has to admit – that YES, a COLD NITROGEN BATH is a GIANT, MAGIC HEATER, and * * *THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE NOT REAL* * *…. or be THROWN OUT of their SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES.
This isn’t Christians or Buddhists or Islamics teaching people the LAWS of PHYSICS aren’t REAL: this is GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES teaching children that * * *THE LAWS of PHYSICS aren’t REAL* * *
Now – lest someone coming along behind us think that maybe I don’t know wtF I’m talking about in this, let me explain how I got my own education and my socialization. When I was a young boy my little brother was born terminallly ill with a devastating neuromuscular disease. Horrible.
And my mother couldn’t get any help from the teachers. They simply found it repugnant to deal with a child who wasn’t healthy. So after some years of begging those self serving assholes to educate her son, she just made up her mind that she was going to do it herself, when she had some aquariums, and discovered that not a TEACHER in the school, even knew a damned thing about BASIC BIOLOGY: EVEN the TEACHERS. None of the science teachers were scientists, they were bullshitting lazy assed milkers. By the time I was in the THIRD grade, I was having to correct the teachers about BASIC SCIENCE, just from her having these aquariums and plants around so she could give my little brother an education.
So – When I was in the third grade, she finally just put her foot down and said “Enough’s enough” and took my little brother completely out of school, took me out of school half time, leaving me there ONLY for those classes, where mathematics or grammar were taught, and she started teaching me herself – she took her aquariums and plants, and turned them into a small business so she could finance giving us the education we REALLY needed, and my little brother and I learned, through hands-on, the entire biologies, of every
single
class of life,
ever discovered by mankind.
Now – on top of that, my father, was a policeman who wanted to be police chief, – he later retired as an I.R.S. enforcement agent – he insisted that I learn history and the history/theory of governance, from him – and he insisted that I read his own small but constantly rotating, personal library of criminology, psychology, law enforcement, self defense, weapons and weapons usage, SELF CONTROL in the face of violent threats, this sorta thing – and at 12 years old he was bringing home the actual copies of our state’s annotated Statutes, and having me read them.
In order to satisfy the teachers that I was indeed getting an education, my mother had be do about, half again as much work as the school kids were doing, writing reports on every imaginable subject related to Earth sciences.
Atmospheric chemistry of course was critical, things that live in water – fish, crustaceans, amphibians, these sorts of critters – the water is their atmosphere. And if you f*** that water up, they’ll die.
From there, I was tired of the biological sciences by the time my brother was so ill my mother couldn’t keep the shops open any more, even with my help, and when I left home I kicked around some, went to the Gulf of Mexico and painted some oil rigs, did some construction, etc – and I decided to go into the hard sciences again, and I pieced my way to a Bachelors’ degree in Electronic Engineering with a specialty in radiant or radiation communications.
In that business, my main clients? Policemen, firemen, important businessmen who needed radios when cell technology was JUST kicking off and far from adequate – and Federal bureau heads who oversaw vast swaths of land out West.
For awhile – not long, it was just too hard for me to keep it up – I was the Electronic Engineer in charge of servicing the contract for the wireless communications of the entire Grand Canyon National Park: 18,000 square miles or something like that. It’s a huge place.
My customers were down in Sedona, Oak Creek Canyon, the Verde Valley, then for awhile I worked in Tucson in the same field.
Eventually I was so tired of being even more up tight than all the cops who were my clients, I drifted away from servicing government contracts, and I became first an industrial electrician, then just a commercial electrician, and I eventually made my way back to working on police communications and court house/jail electronic security systems, and their associated computer networking.
All this time, with all this exotic education and employment activity under my belt, my father the government employee thought of EVERYONE – as just a lower class citizen than government employees. He was loyal to those people when they weren’t loyal to him.
So my experience dealing with this old world comes from a rather exotic and rarified concourse in life, and if you hadn’t been me, you’d be hard pressed to believe someone could be part of so many different social systems.
During my work I hung around with the people who were governing the Navajo Native tribe, the legendarily religious Hopi tribe – I was their government and policemen’s electronic communications and security specialist too – I worked with Hispanic people down in Tucson, who were government employees but almost as full-on Mexican as the many Mexicans and other South Americans in the area – then of course where I grew up in the south, it was majority black – so I have see almost every kind of social structure you can possibly imagine for someone who was raised in the United States.
So here’s the upshot on all my talk about how I have come to all these conclusions about what despicable, lying, thieving, molesters government employees are : they are a priesthood. Each part of the priesthood does it’s own part of the holy herding.
Everything they do is compared against what the other arms of the Holy Herders do, and if it comes down to mankind or the Priesthood: fuck mankind and the mother he fell out of. The PRIESTHOOD – above all. They constitute a CHURCH… and they recognize their kind, where EVER they go in the world, whatever OTHER sub-religion they might practice, once they get into that Western Educational system, and learn to MANIPULATE for a LIVING – who gives a FUCK about the truth?
Think about all the peoples’ lives being ruined T.O.D.A.Y. with this MASSIVE opioid scam civilization is being subjected to. You CAN’T take the opioids too much, or you could DIE. And yet – it’s POT that is ”a gateway to heroin.” No, O.P.I.O.I.D.S. are * * *THE* * * gateway to heroin, the people who you see on television talking about – HOW they got on HEROIN – all tell the SAME f***g STORY: the DOCTOR gave me OPIOIDS.
Yet if you’re found taking some POT so you don’t DIE from the things KILLING you – they cut you off from ALL medicine, COMPLETELY. They’ll turn you in to the POLICE to be PUT into a CONCRETE and STEEL CAGE – take your KIDS, get you fired from your job – they don’t give a f***k about SCIENCE.
They don’t give a f*** about the TRUTH.
THEY GIVE a F***
ABOUT the PRIESTHOOD’S REPUTATION as BEING ABOVE it ALL – so SPECIAL and ‘HOLY’ that – they should be allowed to SURROUND themselves with CHILDREN: use the fine buildings, use the fine educational facilities and keep those jobs where you never get a fucking blister on your hands or a sunburn or EVEN WET in the frigging RAIN in some instances – and they
ANGRILY DENY
that THEY should feel PROTECTIVE about the very CHILDREN they are in there propagandizing that “your parents are really backward and stupid, and you should take MY propaganda HOME and start LOBBYING THEM for me.”
Government employees, are just evil-a&&&d m****kers, and I ought to know: I’ve been around them ALL my LIFE.
So – Robert, Joseph, EVERYBODY – no – it’s NOT your imagination. It’s NOT some kind of artifact of ‘not understanding the way things ought to be’ in YOU.
The world is being RUN
by government employees who told first the Americans then the ENTIRE PLANET that it’s better to SHOOT a CHILD to DEATH over some POT – than just let him go on about his daily business.
The world is being RUN
by government employees SO fucking EVIL that they have told the entire PLANET – that the LAWS of PHYSICS by which we are robotically, remotely landing vehicles – more than TEN of them on VENUS itself – DON’T WORK.
“Thim LAWS AiN’T REALE, thim LAWS ain’t EVUN Sighntsie like thim FELLURS down to thuh GUVURMINT PLAYSiS.. YEW cain’t TRUST thim LAWS uh FISICKS cawse boy, thay’ll LIE two yeW, and THIN you’ll
USE FIRE
and make the SKY git all HOT,
and THiN,…. YEW NOE,
YOU’LL awl have to GIVE thim
GUVURMINT MiNN whut yew kin TRUST,
to FIND OWT what thay can do to make the SKY not git so HOT
from YEW
SELFISHLY
YEWSIN FIRE.
Tell me it’s not that bad.
Tell ME that we haven’t all just been through some 10, then back to 25 years, of government employees, telling YOUR KIDS that a COLD NITROGEN BATH, is a HEATER.
Robert: When climategate first broke, I was BANNED from EVERY MAJOR WEBSITE on this PLANET – not once, not twice, SCORES of times – for TELLING people – a COLD nitrogen BATH
isn’t a GIANT HEATER.
Why? Cawse signtsie, signtsie guvurmint minn dun sed so, and that’s awl thair is two it, we doant NEAD NO BODIE,
TELLIN’ US, that a COLD nitrogen BATH,
ain’t a BIG Old HEEDUR.
You STILL have a hard time over there at Magic Gais Tony Watts’ place, just plain DISCUSSING the GAS LAWS written to CALCULATE GAS TEMPERATURE.
You saw just a few weeks ago, Mentally ill street musician and massage therapist Willis Eschenbach PUT up a THREAD,
*DENYING you can PROPERLY CALCULATE GAS TEMPERATURES USING the LAWS of PHYSICS written SPECIFICALLY for that PURPOSE.*
That’s a f***g magic gasser for you. They LOOK to whatever the GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES are likely to not approve of, – and if it happens to be the LAWS of PHYSICS themselves – f*** the laws of physics, if the laws of physics wanted to get their respect,
they should have dropped out of college like Magic Gas Tony Watts, and gone into MEDIA for a living.
Ok. End of rant, for the moment and as usual I wish all you who come by here trying to figure out wtF has gone wrong with the sciences in this past century, the very best. I hope that you all have the courage to speak truth to power. It’s hard, I’ve shrunk away from it a many a time myself, but I know that good people everywhere are really puzzled about just wtF happened to the Atmospheric and Environmental sciences.
What happened, is GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES wrenched them from the hands of honest men so they can steal, lie, break, ruin, and – yes MURDER – MURDER – anybody who gets in the way of their
stealing
lying
and breaking science over their knee like a dry twig.
Joe, please explain to me how infrared radiation energy can change it’s energy state to something else? I understand that Energy is a conserved entity but heat is not. The AGW folks want to make people think that heat (IR) stays as an added quantity when we know that heat dissipates.
When IR is absorbed by a CO2 molecule then quickly released to surrounding air molecules, can’t that IR energy change states to motion of other molecules and the corresponding heat dissipate into the wind?
George,
At the risk of jumping in on a question to Joe, I’ll have a shot at this.
The relaxation time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is, I think, about 6 microseconds, whereas the time between collisions with other molecules is about 0.0002 microseconds.
What this essentially means is that a significant amount of the energy gained from absorbed LW radiation is translated within the molecule to either increase vibration or higher electron orbits and then physically transferred by conduction to neighbouring molecules before the absorbing molecule can re-emit that energy by radiation.
If, after many (thousands?) of low-energy collisions, the residence time is complete, the CO2 molecule will emit at a photon frequency comensurate with its new (remaining) internal energy state.
I apologise to all if I have this wrong but would welcome any correction.
Regards,
Arfur
The title of this whole thread is … The Alarmist Radiative Greenhouse Effect’s Final End.
With this in mind, I wonder how we can really see the end in sight any time soon, if even NOW, I am finding study guides like the one that inspired my earlier rant. TODAY, as I type, some people are teaching CHILDREN and YOUNG PEOPLE who do not know any better, and who hopefully place some fleeting vestige of any trust that they might still retain in those adults who teach them, … only to encounter official propagandized, confused narratives that ignore 99% of Earth’s ENTIRE atmospheric mass ! [I thought I was over it, but nah, … still bugging me]
Oh, and it gets worse: I found another student-aimed, edgerkashionuhl publication that gets the story so wrong that I almost got a concussion from shaking my head so hard, as I was reading it.
What I’m talking about is located in the following website:
http://websites.pdesas.org/apecora/2012/2/10/358027/page.aspx
It’s a sixth grade science-resources page for a middle school in Pennsylvania, if I did my detective work correctly. The specific horror is found under the CLIMATE UNIT heading, in a .pdf study guide here: http://hs.scasd.us/pecora/pages/studyguides/studyguide_climate.pdf
… under Greenhouse Effect down the page,
… and I quote:
Greenhouse Effect: The Earthʼs atmosphere is naturally covered with a layer of water,
carbon dioxide and methane. Without this heat trapping layer, called the ozone layer,
the Earthʼs average temperature would be -18 degrees Fahrenheit. Fossil fuels (oil, gas
and coal) release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when being burned. Many
people are concerned that released carbon dioxide will cause the Earthʼs natural ozone
layer to become thicker, causing the Earth to have higher than normal temperatures.
Higher than normal temperatures on the Earth could lead to glacier melting, increased
water evaporation and precipitation, a larger amount of severe storms such as
hurricanes and tornadoes and flooding. Recycling (less new materials are then made
by factories) and car pooling are two ways that people can reduce the amount of carbon
dioxide released into the air.
OH … MY … GOD !
The “atmosphere is COVERED” ? — that’s just wrong use of language, in general.
A “layer of water, carbon dioxide and methane” ? — say whut?! — like these three components are somehow fragmented from the other 90+% of Earth’s ENTIRE atmospheric mass, and squished intugh tharn li’l o’l membrain thet cirkals thugh planit [yeah, I’ve adopted thermobilic spelling, like Alan — I understand now]
“Heat trapping layer” ?! — that same old crap again, but somehow, this time, magic gas is magically SMASHED ALTOGETHER into one layer,
… and now, get ready, this is what REALLY kills me …. “called the ozone layer” [please, God, make him stop!]
What can I say. I couldn’t make this shit up. It’s REALLY out there in the world, posing as educational (alternately, “edgerkashionuhl”) material for young minds of today’s civilization.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse ….
“Allen” … I’m spelling your name wrong. Fixed in my mind now, I think. (^_^)
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !! … I can’t stand it.
I’m focused lately on how climate “science” is being “taught” in schools. The picture looks pretty disturbing. You can see the forces of indoctrination fully in swing.
How is there any hope of instilling intelligence, with pieces of “consensus” propaganda like the following website operating today:
http://www.hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/teachersguide/teachersguide.htm
??
This is how it is, man. If you, as a young student or a young teacher of students are not in line with the “consensus”, then you literally are made to feel like an outcast on the road to intellectual hell and cultural damnation.
Robert,
I feel your pain. Genuinely.
I don’t know what the answer is but I can only hope that somewhere, in any education system, teachers and parents exist who allow their students and children to be free to ask questions without fear of ridicule.
The Media Manipulation force is strong within the cAGW movement. Try not to let it get to you too much, eh? 🙂
Regards,
Arfur
… intellectual, criminal negligence.
Two words: home schooling.
Now for an aside rant:
“Climate denier” is the most stupid phrase ever conceived. It is an intentionally misapplied, flawed generalization, achieved by hijacking a word from its original meaning, truncating it from proper adjectives to qualify it in the context where it is used (abused), branded by perpetual application in high-profile, provoking articles that make broad statements of fact about truths that have NOT been established decisively according to high standards of evidence that people would demand in most other situations.
Let’s consider what the phrase really means. It means “human-caused-climate-change denier”. But look how many adjectives are left out — “human”, “caused”, “change”. Even “climate-change denier” is stupid, because the critical compound adjective, “human-caused”, is left out.
So, we have a FORCED implication that “climate” is now REDEFINED to mean “human-caused change to climate”. People who use the truncated, misapplied, intentionally, incorrectly shortened version, “climate denier” are, thus, lazy, ignorant, programmed lemming-parrots, repeating a phrase mindlessly to mirror a sentiment forced upon them with slack evidence and lots of marketing savvy.
Arfur, thank you for your reply.
George,
No problem at all. I hope you get your answer. I’m sure Joe will explain better than I can…
Arfur, I am still waiting for Joe to respond. I hope you have a great day in your part of the world!
“When IR is absorbed by a CO2 molecule then quickly released to surrounding air molecules, can’t that IR energy change states to motion of other molecules and the corresponding heat dissipate into the wind?”
Yes that is what happens. As others have said CO2 is collisionally dominated.
“The AGW folks want to make people think that heat (IR) stays as an added quantity when we know that heat dissipates.”
Right, heat dissipates and never adds back to itself or where it came from etc.
Joe, THANK YOU so much for your reply!! I try to tell the AGW zealots of that concept but they have their head in the sand (or somewhere else dark..lol). Some of those folks supposedly hold PHD’s in Physics!! Like Eric Adler. I know he doesn’t have a clue when he states that the cooler CO2 molecule reflects the IR back to the warmer surface thereby warming it further. Even I know that isn’t possible! You wonder how much thermodynamics they really understand? I only know the basics but I can see what they claim is a joke.
Joe, thank you for all that you do in maintaining this site and carrying the fight to the AGW clowns!
Heat doesn’t add back to itself. Would I also be correct in saying that heat does NOT hinder its own dissipation? [for the “slowed cooling” folks]
That’s correct!
Just spotted another confusion from people saying that IR is heat itself, when it is actually ENERGY waves.
“I know this is hard for you, but… read the entire paragraph. It’s talking about infrared radiation. That’s heat.
I mean, seriously, what do you think they’re talking about? X-rays? Microwaves? Gamma rays?”
https://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/304441-svensmark-closes-loop-missing-link-between-gcrs-clouds-and-climate-post1068263346.html#post1068263346
My reply
https://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/304441-svensmark-closes-loop-missing-link-between-gcrs-clouds-and-climate-post1068263479.html#post1068263479
In Engineering and physics, infrared light is called ‘heat’. In any field of endeavor there are definitional and operational norms referred to as ‘convention.’
When you go through formal training to be fluent & competent in a discipline, during the work day when someone says or writes “Well, be-bop-a-loola,”
you’re supposed to know whether the next line is
“She’s my baby,” or “I don’t mean maybe.”
Multi-discipline technical endeavors encounter terms whose uses overlap without a way to stop it due to functionally accurate definitions, prescribing that one, is factually equivalent, to the other.
In the case of heat and infrared radiant emissions, it’s due to the nature of matter giving off infrared as energy starts leaking out,
and giving off infrared last, as that leakage stops.
Part of being formally trained in it is knowing why definitions overlap that way.
Understanding why it’s the case is indication you’re schooled in matter/energy by someone who knew to get you ready to answer that.
It’s one of those insider type questions you pay money to learn the answer to, along with why.
When energy is distributed through the electron shells of matter, the very first ones that start leaking light, are those which – go figure – can maintain resonance with the lowest concentration of photonic or generically said, electromagnetic energy.
No matter which others also leak light, the lowest energy ones, start leaking it first,as energy intake creates a distribution profile resulting in any emissions, at all.
Whenever average energy concentrations begin to equilibrate, and leakage tapers off, due to energy concentration fields becoming equal on both sides of some boundary, again: it’s the lowest energy-concentration handling electrons, which are last in losing whatever final portion results in equal concentrations in both entities: the lowest energy handling electrons lose that last few photons to whatever lower energy-concentration environment, is recipient of those last, tapering emissions.
========
While what you are saying regarding infrared light being energy and what-not isn’t definitionally INcorrect, you are exposing yourself as having not been through the classroom study which clarifies this matter and explains why it’s taught in radiant transfer classes, that infrared energy is synonymous with heat.
It’s kind of a way of revealing that you’re self taught about the matter Tommy: it’s the case of having learned the fundamentals but of not having someone point out to you that – in the most true and correct of senses – the very fact it leaked out of something is PROOF that it was heat, when it left: It CROSSED a BOUNDARY between a (slightly, since this is very low energy light we’re discussing) higher concentration energy region,
and a lower energy concentration region which CREATED the condition giving rise to the leakage of the energy FROM the higher concentration region, TO a lower concentration one.
These few paragraphs I’m writing to you about this are actually the subject of test questions in college about this very thing: “Explain why ANY gradient-driven energy flow, between higher energy vs lower energy concentration regions is heat, and why ALL infrared energy emissions must be classified as such.”
The fact that the energy involved, spontaneously migrates from the higher concentration region to the lower concentration one, is what MAKES it ‘heat’, and infrared transfer is simply a lower concentration, a lower intensity variant, of that phenomenon.
There’s additional explanation of why infrared is classed as heat when other light which has left an electron might not be referred to as such, and it’s the fact that not everything that receives light of various higher color intensity concentrations, is emitting that same color light.
However in prototypical thermal conditions, everything IS emitting, some infrared. Since everything, pretty much, especially in Earth-referenced physics, is of such temperature intensity that it’s glowing off infrared light, it’s a sort of doubling down on the original definition.
So what I’m saying is that – it’s not a case of the ‘the more specifically you define it, the less true it becomes’, it’s the opposite. Whenever green, yellow and blue light from the sun strike my skin, the vast majority of this just pings off into space. When some of it does get converted to function as heat, putting energy into me that wasn’t there, – whatever color the light was when it started out from the surface of the sun,
what color does it glow right back off as, once electrons on my skin trap it, average it, and distribute it between themselves? it becomes infrared.
Trying to escape these definitions adopted by physics in general and the engineering fields which seek to define, quantify, and manipulate these values, winds up with being confronted with infrared functioning as the true heat quantity being absorbed, then in turn emitted, by not ALMOST everything, but in pragmatic real physics, by EVERYTHING.
When you try to work this around so infrared is not heat, you’re making a mistake because the very definition of it’s leaving something makes it heat. Then, once light of a certain color is trapped by an object not already glowing at that color, as the trapped energy emits again, part of it WILL be infrared.
For instance the sun, as hot as it is – is emitting almost half it’s light as infrared: MORE than half it’s light is infrared to far infrared. When a hydrogen bomb goes off – the vast majority of energy belonging to a particular class, is – infrared. Sure, it gives off gamma, ultra-violet, all this, just as the sun does. Just as your campfire does – but by FAR the MOST energy given off, within the confines of a given spectral spread – is infrared.
I’m trying to think if i’ve phrased that accurately with that reference to ‘by far, the spectral slot encompassing the largest overall quantity of energy is in the color spectra, ‘infrared’ and I think that’s accurate, language wise. Maybe not but I’m sure you get the point. It’s a secondary observation, anyway.
The main point is, there is a good reason general physics and the engineering fields manipulating matter/energy physics refer to infrared as ‘heat’.
I’m gonna stop there. I’m just letting you know that regardless of any accuracy of your own dictum in reference to the infrared light as energy, and electromagnetic energy, and all this – the instant you claim it’s not heat, – that’s actually wrong, and it’s wrong on a couple of fronts.
And people are often told what I said to you about it even in high school if there’s a decent scientific/physics teacher who tries to prepare his students for dealing with engineering and general physics. I kinda don’t know where to stop because I’m trying to ease up on the “you’re wrong, you’re wrong,” but all you’re doing when you make the assertion you are making, is exposing to your audience that you’re not a formally trained physics student, and you need to not give that off to people because – listen – it’s a glaring error.
Like I say, even in high school, you can have people being told to answer the test question, “Why is infrared often referred to as heat?” The short, not-very-intelligent answer, the little ‘half a line on a standard page of typewriter paper” answer is “because everything gives off infrared energy.”
It’s not the definitive two or three page paper, but it assures the teacher that his students are not gonna be going around trying to correct people about it.
Anyway: peace on ya and don’t take any wooden therm-0-nickels.
Allen Eltor
P.S. I’ve been writing and re-writing this for like two hours because first I wanted to be funny, then I was afraid I was sounding like a smartass, and by now I just want to hit “Post Comment” and go get a soda pop and some fried chicken my wife made so if there are glaring grammatical canyons and ravines, let the reader beware. LoL
Peace hippies !
I dunno, Allen — JP might not agree with your creative conflation of infrared and “heat”. I’ll have to read your comment again — it reads reasonably, but so does this: “Frictionless French fries vie frequently for colorful aromas.” (^_^)
Appreciate your reply Allen, but I didn’t say that IR never produced heat, but that it has to find something COOLER than itself to show up as heat. Quoting Wikepedia:
Infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation (EMR) with longer wavelengths than those of visible light, and is therefore invisible to the human eye. It is sometimes called infrared light. It extends from the nominal red edge of the visible spectrum at 700 nanometers (frequency 430 THz), to 1 millimeter (300 GHz)[1] (although specially pulsed lasers can allow humans to detect IR radiation up to 1050 nm.[2][3][4][5]). Most of the thermal radiation emitted by objects near room temperature is infrared. Like all EMR, IR carries radiant energy, and behaves both like a wave and like its quantum particle, the photon.
again from Wikipedia:
In thermodynamics, heat refers to the energy that is transferred from a warmer substance or body to a cooler one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Only the nett transfer of the higher frequency energy state goes from A to B and acts thermally on B and can be called ‘heat”.
The rest of the energy technically never leaves A or B as both emissions are instantly replaced by both emissions,….only the higher frequency shorter photons B cannot produce will act thermally and are the nett transfer.
I thought what had been drilled into us here at this blog is that radiation is NEVER heat. The two words, “radiation” and “heat”, refer to two different concepts — related concepts, for sure, but semantically specifically different in what they categorize.
Radiation is energy, … energized particles/waves/thingies/entities, which I envision as being in MOTION. Heat, on the other hand, is a CHANGE in motion from one location to another location, where the more-motion (warmer) ensemble increases the motion of the less-motion (cooler) ensemble of things.
Radiation is NOT the change that heat is. Radiation is the energy that effects the change to cause us to say “heat” is happening.
Or do I have it all wrong?
That’s great!
The proper definition of heat is a higher energy concentration crossing a boundary into a lower concentration region. There’s another requirement. Temperature must be mediated by this, on one end of that transaction, or the other.
Temperature doesn’t have to change, but it has to be mediated. It has to be affected. In other words if energy is being pumped into something, and then begins to leak out into a lower energy concentration region, there is a requirement before this can be heat. It must have an effect on temperature, of the entity leaking the energy into the lower energy region, or the region receiving more energy or both.
There are instances when energy leaks from a higher concentration region, to a lower concentration region, but temperature is not affected. There hasn’t been heat flow.
Planets receiving energy from stars, give that energy off as heat. There need not be ANY other ENTITY involved, for the energy leaking out of the object giving it off, for that energy to be heat.
Tommy – your definition is incorrect because it mandates need for a cooler, or a recipient entity.
Likewise the single sentence definition from Wikipedia you derived your definition from,
is incorrect for the same reason.
There is no need for a cooler entity in the real definition of heat. There is only mandate that there be a higher concentration region, a lower concentration region, and a boundary between them.
That’s all there is to it, – well, temperature of something involved must be mediated, must be affected,
and a million * * *incorrectly constructed definitions* * * on the internet,
or in even Universities, are not going to change this.
All * * *non radiant transfer specialists* * * can be swiftly – detected, by a REAL radiant transfer expert, by checking to see if the non radiant transfer expert,
* * *clumsily tries to re-define what heat is. * * *
It might serve to satisfy the mind of the public schooler, the non radiant transfer expert; but it is still, when the last t is crossed,
when the last i is dotted,
WRONG.
You do not need, the more energetic entity, to even still be in existence,
to have the ‘higher energy concentration region’ exist.
A good example of this, is when a star explodes.
The star is gone.
It’s high concentration energy field, remains.
Millions of years later, the high concentration energy, strikes an exposed black object, on the dark side of a spacecraft,
and temperature climbs.
There is no longer an emitting entity,
and there has not been for millions of years.
And yet, the REAL definitional requirements for HEAT to exist, are intact.
What did I tell you all, MUST exist for there to be heat?
There must be a region of energy concentration,
There must be another region, of LOWER concentration,
There must be a BOUNDARY:
and TEMPERATURE
must be affected on one end of that transaction, or the other.
Thus met, the definitional requirements for heat exist, and thermal sensors affixed to the dark object indicate sufficient energy capture, that temperature is mediated.
=======
If you don’t work in the field of infrared and other radiant transfer –
if you education doesn’t revolve around your being able to,
*with perfect accuracy*
answer any and all questions regarding radiant transfer,
*with extensive infrared energy propagation and handling specialization,*
you probably can’t see any reason
for being such a stickler for accuracy
in defining heat correctly.
There’s just too many people, asking too many questions, for Joseph, or really, ANY body, to simply answer them all, in a sort of ‘on tap’ configuration where he answers everything ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and – somehow, you guys all wind up,
with the right answers.
I’m sitting here talking aloud to myself, my wife thinks I’m gonna get upset, and I’m trying to figure out how to explain to you guys that – you’ve kinda pigeon-holed Joseph to answer questions about radiant transfer, and what the definitions of heat are,
and he’s doing his best to field them all, but – you’re getting out ahead of anyone’s capacity to answer fully, so you wind up with the right idea.
I would know about this. You guys saw me say what my early education is. Part of that deep, wide, biology specialization was fielding specially contrived trick questions, by my teachers.
My mother taught me how to find the answers and come back with the right ones, but like chicks will do, they were competing, using me as the intermediary, and my mother sorta took her revenge on my teachers, by teaching ME how to discover trick questions THEY couldn’t answer. Which I did do, to her never ending delight.
Later on when i didn’t think i’d ever be able to afford a University degree, I went into two vocational schools,first to become a general purpose analog and digital electronics technician;
and in the second one, my teacher told the class, “You guys are going to work for fully fledged, University-trained, Electronic Engineers; and they are going to expect you to understand every single symbol, and word they either write or speak to you,
and to the degree you can’t do that, is going to be the degree to which you’re embarrassed about the quality of your education.”
I instantly perked up on that shit, because – I had already been through this, with my own school teachers some years before, and I knew how people who had attended a formal university liked to pride themselves that it was all worth it, and how they were the smartest mufus they knew,
and I knew they liked to find the places your knowledge was short, and for various reasons
including deepening and broadening your education – they would just pound away at you on these areas.
My teacher in that course was a long-time radiation communications teacher, and of course this involves every form of energy that can be made to glow off something, so as SOON as I was enrolled,
I started asking him, e.v.e.r.y. single chapter of the books we went through, “What are the trick questions about this? Is there anything you can think of that will make me seem like I just know everything there is to know?”
The guy was old, he had about ten years to retire, but he’d been teaching radiation communications for nearly twenty years when I took his class, and he didn’t get irritated with me about it, it made life a little more interesting for him, and he went out of his way to make sure that we, the guys in the class I took, were savvy about almost anything he could imagine, would ever come up in real life work.
Later on when I went to actual University classes I did somewhat, the same thing; and sure enough, when I got out of school with a degree in Electronic Engineering, specializing in radiant transfer, radiant communications,
one of the very first things that started happening was my boss, also an Electronic Engineer, started asking me questions about everything under the sun
. In actual FaCT, one of the FirST things he called me into his office and asked me, was “Hey – did you see Dr.s Hansen and Mann testifying to the Senate?
He was smiling like – “We’re gonna find out, stupid,” and I said “Yeah, I watched it, Dave” and he said “Well…. what do you think?”
I told him – not knowing if it might mean my job – “Well, Dave, the atmosphere isn’t a heater, it’s a cold nitrogen bath.
Second off those trees they’re talking about can’t determine the entire temperature of the globe.
Third, I heard Dr. Hansen’s old boss, explain the nature of Hansen’s scam, not including the proper gas law in his models,
not including the compression warming of the atmosphere,
so his calculations come up 33 degrees short,
so he can’t even calculate the temperature of the global atmosphere right.”
His eyes kinda got narrow, and his smile came back, like he had a mouth full of broken glass he was taking delight in holding in it, and he nodded… yep…yep… and said, “I just wanted to see what you had to say about it… We’ll SEE…”
I said, “Yeah, they’re fakes Dave, nothin’s gonna happen. You and I know, there’s no such thing as two right answers when you calculate something, and they can’t calculate the temperature of the global atmosphere right, so that alone tells you they’re conning people.”
Dave looked at me again, like he couldn’t believe what I’d just said.. but he was definitely smiling and Dave and I got along fine for the rest of the time I worked for him.
Now: I said all that, so I can say this: It is an IMPOSSIBLE task, for someone to correctly line you out about particle/photon/radiation physics, with just ”Yes,” “No,” “Yes,” “No” answers. It is – watch what I say, yO –
i.m.p.o.s.s.i.b.l.e.
And you would never know this unless you have been in the business of answering those questions.
It’s not Joe’s fault, it’s not you guys’ fault, it’s the nature of the particle-wave physics photon entanglement/radiation game.
It’s just the way it is. Like I said, I would know, because I asked, a MASTER radiation physics teacher, who had been teaching that for nearly two decades, “Is there any kind of trick question I can derive out of this so I can amaze the engineers I work for?”
In turn, he would often ask me, “If someone asked you X, Y, or Z, what is the correct answer? This isn’t going to be on the test but I know you’re not gonna overload. What would you say?”
I’m telling you guys right now, there was damned near NEVER a simple, ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, to any questions related to particle/radiation mechanics.
For instance: radiation being heat. When your stove glows, your wood burning stove, that you heat till parts of it are softly glowing cherry red – that radiation is heat. AGAIN: what is the definition of conditions where heat exists?
There is a high energy concentration region,
There is a lower energy concentration region,
There is a boundary,
There is temperature mediation in relation to some entity, associated with the transfer.
That means, that the infrared glowing off that stove, is heat.
It also means when you open the door and the yellow light from that fire radiates out, THAT is heat.
For clarity’s sake, we often say ”energy loss as yellow light,” but – since that light comprises a high energy concentration region – the plasma –
and the light emits out into a much lower energy density region, your room –
and since there is a boundary – the electrons comprising the vapor emitting light as the plasma-
and there is temperature mediation on at least one end of the deal – that light,
that radiant energy, is actually leaving, as heat. Right along with the massive amount of infrared which leaves – always – as heat.
One of my friends said, regarding people attempting to teach themselves particle/wave atomic/photon capture-emissions physics, that “They always want the answers to be short, they always change the definitions, and they *always change them to things they can see or touch.”
Such is the case with the world around you. Such is the ERRONEOUS definition of heat at Wikipedia, and a hundred other websites.
There is only ONE always absolutely correct definition for conditions where heat can exist.
A higher vs lower energy concentration gradient:
there is a boundary,
migration of energy past that boundary, winds up creating temperature *mediation on one or both ends of that transaction.*
If all these conditions exist, there is heat.
If all these conditions aren’t met, there is NOT heat.
There ARE no short answers, in particle-wave photon entanglement and emissions physics. There simply aren’t. Not in real life. You might contrive a couple, but – you’re not gonna get far, and the very best thing you can do, is simply face the fact, that there are a FEW times in life, where that old saw about “the shorter the answer the better” simply doesn’t hold.
You really need professional experience explaining it to your customers, your clients, so THEY understand as well as they can be made to, out in the wild.
You learn the knack – the professional grade talent, of never sounding like you’re at the end of your rope when you’re explaining it to people. You have to be a relatively fast speaker – or in the case of internet discourse, a fast typist – and yet have the actual physical experience working with it then explaining line-for-line what you did, and why, to people – and to different types of people – to stop your in-depth answers from becoming unfocused rambles.
I’m gonna stop now, don’t be impolite guys, okay? This is a deep subject, and you’ll all notice that I’m not trying to make fun of you guys, I’m trying to help you out. It isn’t any body’s fault, that this is so difficult, except maybe the no good mo****kers who started using science itself as the ultimate scam, and who teach people to simply lie, lie, and lie some more, and never admit they’re wrong.
Years ago before people were conditioned to be as short-attention span as they are today, you used to see physicists say regarding people trying to teach themselves particle-wave entanglement/emissions physics that ”people resent having to take the full lap around the track, every time they say something.”
How much more do you think that’s true today? That’s all I’m gonna say for now.
There is one definition regarding conditions where heat can exist.
A higher energy region
A lower energy region
A boundary
Temperature mediation on one end or both when migration across the boundary occurs.
All other pseudo-definitions might hold for awhile but before long, they crumble. That’s all there is to it.
Again, I have been conditioned here NOT ever to say that energy can BE heat. My understanding is that heat is NOT the energy, but rather the CHANGE in energy from a place of higher energy to a place of lower energy. Heat is a transitional dynamic, NOT a state in an of itself. Heat can flow. But heat cannot be. Heat does not last, because it is not a thing with lasting attributes — it is a description of the transition — very tempting to call it the energy that results from the transition, but no, as I have understood it here.
I know … people talk about “heat energy”, but I’m thinking that this can lead to confusion, as far as exact definitions are concerned. An instance of letting the phrase slide amplifies into a full-blown distortion, propagated through culture as the confusion we see today in climastrology.
It’s tough to break the habit of thinking of “heat” the way most of us have been brought up to think of it. The way we talk about “heat” is a way that regards it as a stuff. And it is NOT a stuff — it is a change in stuff.
Work is not a stuff. Temperature is not a stuff. Going from here to there is not a stuff. Time is not a stuff. It’s a slippery concept, heat.
Now warm air is another story. Warm air IS a stuff — a stuff that we describe according to our sensation of it in terms of how human physiology interacts with this stuff. I think that there is an acceptable sense of “trapping warm air”, but NOT “trapping heat”. Heat is NOT the stuff. Air is. And we can sense energized air as “heated”, when we compare it to less energized air. This is how our language deals with the physical sensations of the stuff, as it MOVES, or as we assess the possibility of its moving from one energy situation to another energy situation.
Heat has four requirements.
There must be a higher concentration energy region.
There must be a lower concentration energy region.
There must be a boundary.
There must be a mediation of temperature on one or both ends of the energy migration.
I wrote last night it’s a deep subject, that it’s complicated.
I cut and pasted paragraphs several times. Off the cuff blogging isn’t professionally edited stuff.
Heat alone isn’t complicated – which is why your local welder, rancher, A/C technician, can accurately define it. It’s necessary they all be able to do so, and they can.
Where it gets complicated, is trying to fend off throngs of magical-physics barking therm-0-billies.
I’ve seen physicists, astro-physicists, hard sciences theoretical experts, attempt to field endless questions from the far flung corners of the intellectual universe before. It’s astonishing how often it boils down into a morass of confusion, despite the theoretician’s best efforts. This has happened here.
If it can be taught to a welder, who can in turn be entrusted to zip seams culminating in an aircraft carrier group on which the fortunes of the world’s greatest empires will float, why is it so troubling here? There’s no need for that.
In physics there is a rule. Thou shalt not authority worship. That is the end of intellectual development. What happens is some teacher or theoretician, has his job, and he’s got to teach, he’s got to do his personal research, and he also starts answering questions to others on the side; but these outsider questions don’t have a text; there’s no linear trail of do’s and don’ts, and there’s no particular page number to refer people to.
The theoretician answering the questions comes by, sees the questions, thinks to himself, “Mmm, that’s pretty close, he’ll figure this sh* himself before long,” and he says “Yeah sure that’ll work.”
But the person asking the question doesn’t know how intellectual freestyling actually goes on. He’s not aware that the theoretician answering his questions, simply can not be expected, to take every single question, re-phrase it into some simpler, more wholesome and pure sound byte, just for that person’s benefit. For your theoretician to be an honest, and competent physicist, isn’t enough.
I have seen this devolution of group intelligence go on time, after time, after time, and in fact – it’s legendary stuff. And it comes from pressuring your authority figure, – in this case Joseph – to BE your authority figure. People who are theoreticians, mathematicians, and also authority figures for hundreds, have this bubble build up around them almost no matter who they are. This bubble of confusion building up on the part of students looking to a theoretician in the really intricate hard physical sciences is – to use the word again – legendary.
It’s like any other highly predictable mass social pathology: the first time you see it happen, the second, third, fifth, thirteenth time you see it happen, your immediate and laser-direct instinct, is to blame the theoretician for letting these people get themselves so confused.
But it’s like adultery or murder or theft: if it’s always the leaders’ faults, how come it pops up, every single time a crowd of non leaders, appears? It’s one of these bizarrely predictable, creepy social pathologies that simply must be witnessed dozens of times before one realizes this can not be the fault of the people who know the most about the subject.
Then, the judgemental person looks around for people at the bottom of this social construct, to blame. And once again, there’s plenty of juice for the moral moron to blame someone, but it keeps happening again,
and again, even to the world’s most intelligent men. Even among groups of students or apprentices hand picked to try to avoid this very, artificial bubble of dum-dum that gets built up.
Now. What it is,
is the nature of primates. We’re very very cunning and intelligent when it comes to getting what we want, so we’re dangerous. So, we build up absolutely necessary paradigms of tolerance and non judgementalism so we can all – those who are driven to know more, get to the bottom of things, these free thinkers and ambitious wanna-know-more types – so we can all get along and not start fighting it out with double edged daggers at meetings, and let the last motherf***r standing on a desk, covered in blood, win the meeting by barking defiance at the wounded to “CmON, try ME!!”
And RIGHT there, with a blend of ambition on several parts, coupled with the need to be kind to each other, the end has been written in lemon juice, on a paper that nobody’s gonna notice has been written on, till someone takes a lighter and holds it under the paper, making the secret code words be revealed. This goes on, time after time.
===============
So: what you’re all gonna have to do, is get it through your individual heads, that the only way to run a think tank, is for each individual to realize that *he is going to be creating one of these artificial bubbles of dum-dum, unless he is v.e.r.y, very careful, h i m s e l f.
Your leader, can NOT make you as smart as he is, without your personal help, and indeed, you’ll have your leader saying stuff that he looking back, wishes he could take back. We are all standing here looking down on the plains below, from the jagged pinnacle of “Hind sight is 20/20 Mountain” at this point.
I wish, a long time ago, some YEARS ago – I’d had the presence of mind, to pop into one of these discussions about “What exactly is heat, anyway?” and said what I said last night. Just give you all, the true definition for heat in real physics – not – you know… Wikipedia physics…
and I’m sure each of you, looking back, – if you’re really honest, can see clearly by now, that – what you should have been doing, was compiling investigative techniques that left you with a little bit clearer understanding, and a little less reliance on just asking Joseph, if this, or that, is “right?”
And I imagine Joseph is embarrassed about those Argyle socks.
If ever a mufus, has jumped up on a desk, and kicked away dropped fighting daggers, and cut-off hands, and shouted in his very most empathetic Rodney King – wasn’t it Rodney King? – imitation, “Can’t we all, just get along?” one just did.
That’d be me in case this flood of bullsh** is too impenetrable to be sorted by you people, my friends.
Once this tangled net of confusion sets up to the point where nearly everyone is a little puzzled, a reset, just becomes, necessary. And with that observation, I’m probably about to type and post the last thing I’ll ever be allowed to post here. Give me a minute, I’ve got to think about what I’m gonna say. I’d like to have a friend in the integrity in science movement left, by the time I’m done here.
This is all off the cuff, so if somebody grammar Nazi’s me, you’re just not going to be entertaining me. I just so happen to be a specialist in f**ng up sophists. My parents, one in law enforcement and one who started a marine/freshwater fish breeding/pets/plants shop, got pigeon-holed themselves by their customers after my mom got too enthusiastic when she was telling everyone about why she thought she was justified in starting those businesses out in the middle of rural nowhere, claiming – truthfully I admit, that the regional pets, fish, plants shops, had simply lied, cheated, bullshitted and stolen from her.
People started showing up telling her – with my dad off at work – that someone had lied, cheated or stolen from them – using chemical and biological sciences sophistry – and they’d want her help. She’d be like.. wtF do you want ME to do about it?” And those simple minded country people, who often had their OWN handicapped kid, or some kind of reason for falling for my mom’s truly, and really, sympathetic story, would do a double take, and say… “I want you to help me CATCH them, you told me your husband’s a cop and he’s going to be a police chief, and you personally nor he can stand people doing dishonest stuff!”
My mom sent a couple of those people away without helping them and all hell broke loose. People stopped coming to her shops, so she couldn’t finance the place and keep us out of school, pay for things pertaining to my ill brother, finance giving us some real education rather than… (holds nose) attending only the pubs. Woah, woah, WOAH..
So my mom, fearless hotshot, started taking people up on it and going where people had their own businesses, their own stalls at the county fairgrounds, this sorta thing – and she’d set em up and bust the shit out of em, right there to their faces, explaining after they conned her that she wanted her money back, the lady who told her the people were cons, were right over there, and that she was going to refer them to the local business bureau, tell all her friends, make a big stink, and she actually had to retreat to her car and whip out a f***g pistol a couple of times as men followed her around not believing a human being had the brass to do wtF she’d just DONE to them. My mom was a stud f**n DuCK.
Coupled with this, I already told you guys, she was – on the other hand – training me to understand why the teachers were trying to use trick questions to devalue the education she was able to provide me by keeping me home half the time to work in her biological labs.
So when I come to you guys saying all this I don’t come having just figured I’ve seen a couple of people put things the way I don’t like it, so I’m gonna “set yew awl straight,”
I happen to be, -something I never in my life dreamed was going to do me so much good – an expert in describing deep scientific terms to people who – not only wouldn’t understand it if it were in more complex terms, but who are DUG in and DEFIANT that I will NOT explain whatever it is I’ve come to say, and make them sit down, s.t.f.u, and stop even trying to HIDE it’s obvious they can’t HELP but believe it.
Let that sink it before I say anything more, because I don’t really know what to say except that you guys all need to do a massive reset, and I think although it’s a quick direction change I’m trying to figure out what I need to say so I can be of help to you guys, and not just some irritated sounding old physics guy who hates everybody.
It just isn’t that way, believe me.
Believe me about that. If you don’t know me, go look up this blog pseudonym and watch me romp on some magic gassers. I know how to be rude.
And that’s just not what these posts are about.
Light.
Radiation.
Energy.
Heat.
… the four pillars of mass confusion ?
Well I thought I was going to grow the balls to make some suggestions about how you guys are going to do a reset on this “what is heat” question.
But I can’t, because I don’t feel comfortable suggesting to Joseph that I think he/you should start a new thread related to heat which has been subject to some research and reflection regarding several sciences – maybe remarking on how these artificial bubbles of confusion can set themselves up when people ask a theoretical or applied physics authority figure questions resulting in “Yes/No” answers, and have it turn out that despite everyone’s very best intentions, these confused results be the result.
It takes a special kind of savvy to teach yourself elements of theoretical physics because every single time you start telling yourself “I understand now” the nature of having a fundamental reality made of of MORE than 50 basic elements, which are all surrounded and being buzzed about by electrons,
each of these having capability of being removed
all these entities having a charge identity,
all these entities having a spin identity,
all these entities having a locational identity
all these being able to be hammered by an almost unlimited spectral spread of concentrated energy
this means that physics itself is indeed a very, very broad field.
Sadly MOST people, even those who deeply dedicate themselves to an understanding of physics – don’t get the necessary hands-on experience, f**ng things up and getting chewed out, having people terrorize them that “if you’re wrong” or my personal favorite, I heard from my boss one time, “If the State Police aren’t talking on the North end of the state in three hours, you’re fired.”
Most people just plain never have the terror of being wrong, that it takes to stop lying.
This is a MAJOR impediment to learning accurately the theory, of the applied physics we all love.
Unfortunately for nearly everyone it’s necessary that you set some sh** on fire, melt some stuff, break some stuff nobody should see broken unless they’re in the business of fixing it, before you can take those true, photographic images that remain burned into your mind no matter how many black and white text symbols you have also helping define it – and which you run across, that would confuse it.
As far as heat goes though, it’s actual bounding parameters, are very limited.
And you can check yourself – whether you’re lying to yourself – by asking yourself –
if you start down some descriptive or explanatory path – are you going to start having to buck and snort, and “Bu-But..Except if…”
– heat is one of those thankfully simple concepts, whose most fundamental, theoretical definition, covers everything very, very well – and is an outstanding guide for any language you ever use, regarding heat.
In electronics, heat is the devil.
Heat kills.
Heat is the great enemy, and every time you invent a new part, or you install a part, or do anything, the amount of heat you make is almost the very first consideration.
If it’s the right part, when you install it and turn it on, if you note it’s heating up too much then it’s proof – you just f***d up. If you put the part in and it creates just the right amount of heat – not too much for goodness’ sake, and not none at all because that indicates the part isn’t turning on and performing it’s function relative to the other parts – the chance you’ve messed up badly is pretty small.
Heat reveals the truth, in electronics. Efficiency of your parts selection is described in ratio of signal you want to generate, vs heat you actually do generate.
This is why I can purport to you guys that when I tell you something about it, it’s more than just a guess. Heat, is live and die in electronics.
Everything you make creates it,
everything you do is measured by the ratio of heat it makes, vs other kinds of energy.
Even in something as simple as tuning an antenna, when you affix the signal transmission coax, your endpoint is what’s called a dummy load, and when your transmission system is set up properly, any incorrect parameters in that setup are indicated to you on a meter – but the waste energy is captured and dissipated in watts of heat.
An astrophysicist isn’t this obsessed with infrared energy, with heat and it’s true, proper physical definitions. A brain surgeon isn’t. A submarine commander in charge of an entire nuclear submarine and it’s attendant systems isn’t. Even a man who manufactures an electronically controlled pellet stove – you’d think he’s so obsessed with the measurement of heat that nobody on earth would be more concerned. Nope.
Micro-electronics, in other words, modern general electronics – we are more concerned with generating and dispensing heat
than anybody on the planet.
We install and check on parts that are designed to generate no more than an eighth of a watt, every day. We design or maintain gigantic transmission units for broadcast radio and television whose power is measured in millions of those very same, watts.
Those watts, ultimately, are heat.
So it’s mission critical that we’re never – not EVER – wrong about heat.
If you’re wrong, and you install some 1/8th watt resistors, or capacitors, or transistors or chips, and they are subsequently asked to dissipate 1/4 watt: they’re gonna make a tiny *poP* sound, and the smoke inside is going to escape, and that’s all she wrote for those parts. (It’s a joke… “What did you do?” “I got it hot, and it broke open and the smoke inside making it work leaked out, and now it’s broken.”)
Heat is energy. Heat is energy in many forms, and it doesn’t really matter what that form might be.
There is one definition only which covers all questions.
There must be a high energy concentration
There must be a low energy concentration
There must be a boundary
There must be a mediation of temperature, somewhere along the way.
When you have that – you have heat. When you don’t, you do not.
This definition is thankfully universal and can not ever be gone around. As I told you all, the very first time some wannabe tries to change that definition,
HE will SHORTLY and VERY EASILY be shown, WRONG.
There are very few definitions in all physics, which are so universally accurate – so concise, and so utterly inviolable.
There is no field of endeavor whose own definition subsumes or modifies the original, real one.
There is no set of conditions according to which the definition can or will need be modified.
It also covers every form of energy one can imagine. For example: I discussed it above some, how – you don’t even need the original energy expressing entity to still exist: the exploded star.
You don’t need anything on the BACK end of the migration from “high concentration to low concentration, across a boundary, such that a temperature is affected on one or both ends of the migration.
That becomes clear when one realizes a planet or rock radiating energy to the void vacuum of space – is still glowing off energy as heat.
The TRUE definition of heat even includes that created by magnetism and chemicals.
If a magnetic field passes through some region, or an object, and this creates energization which subsequently flows from a higher concentration of energy region,
to a lower energy concentration region,
past a boundary,
and a temperature is mediated along the way – that magnetic energy has been expressed as heat.
It even controls language you can correctly use regarding multiple heat fields within a certain context.
I hate to correct my buddy Joseph but I knew when he started arguing with Magic Gais Tony Watts about that light bulb thing, that *Watts had been to electrical engineering school* and as a sophist, was planning to ambush Joseph, and make him seem like he didn’ know what he was talking about.
Observe. The REAL definition of heat is what I told you it is. There has to be a higher energy concentration region, a lower concentration region, a boundary, and temperature at some point must be mediated.
This means that by inviolable and utterly absolute definition, lower intensity streams of energy striking an object, are in fact definable as heat. They might not be the more concentrated heat energy, but it doesn’t matter because when that stream of energy left whatever it glowed off of
when it left,
it was in a higher concentration energy region
it migrated to a lower concentration energy region – the vacuum of space with a few air molecules interspersed in there –
it crossed a boundary
and temperature was mediated 1st when it left,
and then temperature of a second entity was mediated when it struck the warmer object and inhibited emissions from that entity, on a photon-by-photon basis.
Oh yes, it did, and knowing that Magic Gas Tony had been around electrical engineering school long enough to have learned about the true definition of heat, I told Joseph in private, “Joe, if you don’t take that rebuttal down to his bullshit, he and his sophist friends are gonna eat you alive on it, because he’s exploiting you (via the actual, true, original and inviolable definition of heat)
I love you Joseph but – I told you those assholes were about to have a rage-a-thon about that, and it all revolves around Magic Gais Tony the college dropout and dipshit,
knowing just enough
to be able to exploit the fact that the *true definition of heat* allowed him to get away with a lot of the conning he was doing. I came to despise that motherf***r when I saw him doing that because I knew right then and forever more: that motherf***r was nothing but a con man. NOTHING I said,
but a CON man.
NOTHING: but a TWO-bit CON man is what that despicable booger-eating college dropout hick is, and I hope someone uncovers photos of him and Willis Eschenbach feeding each other boogers off the ends of their fingers, in the nude, covered in coconut oil.
I came to hate that no good motherf***r the day I saw him do that and that despisement will not ever diminish o.n.e. single w.h.i.t. until long, LONG after I read that somehow, that CON man’s heart stopped and he is gratefully for scientific integrity, in a grave or an ash urn.
I’d imagine that you, Joseph, wondered how the hell Magic Gas Tony Watts’ light bulb scam caught on so hard so fast, and remained alive through so much. It was the FACT that he was EXPLOITING
your not being heavily enough schooled in electrical or electronic engineering to know how inviolable that definition – the TRUE definition -of heat is.
I’m gonna shut up now I know I’ve said unpleasant things and I’m going to let someone else talk awhile. I’m not trying to make you mad Joseph but I tried to tell you all those years ago that those guys were going to make hay of your rebuttal of Magic Gas Tony’s light bulb scam. He was exploiting the true definition of heat
in order to change the subject and confuse matters, and subsequently had a field day with the integrity in science movement because of it.
Peace guys I’m sorry we’ve had to argue about this but – sometimes it’s time for a reset and you guys need to figure out what the true and inviolable definition of heat is, why it can not ever be modified in any way, and start making use of it in your arguments against these “Magical Gaissiness dun turn’t a cold nitrogen bath intwo uh… big ol’ heedur!”
Yaw.
(((Peace & Love)))
Okay, so maybe we might say that heat is a very specifically qualified energy. But I still think that “heat”, proper, is truly the TRANSITION, in the purest sense. The resultant energy gain as a result of the heat TRANSITION is an excess energy compared to what was there before it arrived, and so maybe we can call this excess energy due to the TRANSITION by the name, “heat”. But without this transition that is the dynamic of heat, we cannot call this energy “heat”, as I have solidified my understanding here.
I still do not think that heat can be discussed in reference to radiation going from a cooler object to a warmer object. There is no transition in this case, and so there is no heat that we might attribute to the non-transition. We have to call it something else — “deflection” or “reflection” or some other term that means we deny the transition resulting in a transfer from less-energy to more-energy locations.
The concept of “heat” is so proximate to the energy that evokes the terminology that, for practical reasons, we might call this energy by the name, “heat”.
But an ice cube CANNOT send out any “heat” towards a candle, even with a vacuum in between. “Heat” can only be discussed when higher energy moves to lower energy, and only then, can the difference between higher and lower be called by the same name that categorizes the TRANSITION, “heat”. Heat CAN be thought of as an “energy” AND as a TRANSITION of “energy”, but the circumstances have to be those defined with respect to the warmer and cooler entities between which it might “flow”.
I, therefore, can understand why Joe made such an effort to purify the definition as he has — it forces us to speak more precisely.
Allen E.,
I went back and carefully read your comment on 2018/03/10 at 3:15 PM, … to clarify differences in our understanding. So, don’t feel attacked, if I disagree, because what I am really doing is showing how MY understanding differs from YOUR understanding, and this process of confronting differences might lead to better understanding for us both.
I will focus on your sentence where I detected most clearly our differences.
You wrote:
When you try to work this around so infrared is not heat, you’re making a mistake because the very definition of it’s leaving something makes it heat.
My response:
MY understanding is that infrared is electromagnetic RADIATION, which exists on a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, where we also find visible light, as well as other wavelengths of energy that, apparently, we can also call “forms of light”.
MY understanding is that merely “leaving something” is NOT a sufficient requirement to consider electromagnetic radiation “heat”. And if we can consider all this other electromagnetic radiation as different forms of light, then, similarly, merely “leaving something” is NOT a sufficient requirement to call light “heat” either.
An ice cube emits infrared, no doubt. If I understand you correctly, then I assume that you consider the ice cube’s infrared emission as “heat”. To me, THIS is incorrect. The ice cube’s infrared CANNOT be considered universally as “heat”. The ice cube’s infrared can only be considered “heat” under particular circumstances. Place the ice cube near liquid nitrogen, then, yes, the ice cube’s infrared IS heat (roughly speaking). Place the ice cube near a candle, then, no, the ice cube’s infrared is NOT heat. In both cases, there is a “leaving something” happening, but this “leaving something” is NOT sufficient to call the ice’s infrared “heat” in both cases — it IS in one case, and it is NOT in the second case.
When I think about radiation-heat-light, I have realized that my conception of heat at the very smallest scale is fuzzy. Hence, my conception of radiation and light at this small scale is also fuzzy. I really don’t know how it works at this scale.
Say we view radiation as particles. Here’s my fuzziness: Do the particles of radiation at DIFFERENT energies intermingle with one another with different internal energy states, or do the different energy states limit how the particles intermingle in the first place?
If lower energy particles are not making their ways through higher energy particles, then how do night vision goggles work or other infrared detecting devices work? Even if these devices accommodate for the environment, what does this mean? The lower energy particles still have to get through the higher energy particles to even be detected, right? The measuring device cannot just clear the path of all high energy particles, like Moses parting the sea, so that the lower energy particles can go through a tunnel to hit the detector. So, what’s going on?
As an ice cube emits infrared toward a candle, how should I envision the particulate nature of the interaction? Are the ice-cube-energy particles pushing through the candle-energy particles, or are the candle-energy particles pushing most of the ice-cube-energy particles out of the way? Where IS the energy? — in the gross motion of the particle? … or in the internal structure of the particle? How does one conceive of this “energy”? — as jiggling at a certain speed side-to-side?, forward momentum?, a combination? — heck, what IS energy? See, when I get down to this level, everything starts to go to hell for me.
Robert, energy leaks out of something in a mode taught as analogous to pressure. Higher pressure on one side – higher energy concentration – means energy leaks out until the energy concentrations are equal on both sides of some boundary.
When lower concentration energy strikes something containing and emitting or in other words leaking higher concentration energy, it inhibits emissions photon-for-photon.
This is why if you place a resistor in Phoenix in the summer, and the same resistor in Antarctica in the winter, then run through ten watts through it,
it’s temperature will be greater than the surroundings in both instances, but the final temperature at which that ten watts emits, will be dramatically different.
The energy fields streaming against something inhibit emissions until the (ostensibly higher energy concentration containing) object such as the resistor, stop energy from escaping.
This is because in particle/sub-atomic physics, including photonic entanglement and emissions, like entities repel each other. It’s this mutual repelling that makes energy leave an object. It’s pushed out – repelled, by the pressure of the higher concentration energy behind it.
Each photon acts as a particle but more concentrated photons have a shorter wavelength. Photons also contain identical energy which is why Einstein named them ‘Quantum’ entities.
Observe that E = mc(squared).
If you have a lead pellet, a tennis ball, a larger child’s ball and a beach ball that all weigh 50 grams, and you fire them all at the speed of light, technically they all have the same energy.
However if you chalk a line on a bowling alley floor and roll each particle past measurements on that floor, each one will take a different time frame to pass a given point. The more concentrated mass of the lead pellet has a more concentrated wave function than the beach ball, even though all contain the same energy.
The lead one will also penetrate things the beach ball won’t due to this smaller wavelength function.
Any geometry has a waveform function: the amount of time it takes some entity to cycle through the space. In the case of photons, bluer light, is more concentrated: it’s wave function is smaller, the math describing it’s mass is different than the beach ball.
The mathematics describing the blue photon are different than the mathematics describing the wavelength or wave function of the red photon. The red photon appears and does take longer to cross a given point in space, even though both move at the speed of light.
Electrons which reside closer to the nucleus of the atom, are pulled into the nucleus’ respective +1 quasi-magnetic charge, because it’s nearer – just as two magnets closer together are harder to pull apart.
Electrons and protons are apparent monopole magnetic structures and they tend to pull together.
Electrons closer to the center of the atom, tend to capture more concentrated light – bluer photons make the electrons more energetic but they don’t ionize and fly off because their proximity to the nucleus keeps them pulled in, and the atom remains intact.
You’ll recall Einstein discovered the photo-electric effect which is when blue light strikes electrons farther from the nucleus and moves them along a (copper) line. This moving of the electron is an artifact of our discussion regarding blue light energizing inner electrons but not dislodging them.
A more concentrated photon has more energy per unit volume – not more energy total. It’s a rather involved thing, photonic energy is, and it takes awhile to figure it out but basically as remarked, a lead BB, a tennis ball, a child’s lightweight ball about the size of a soccer ball, and a beach ball, all weighing exactly 50 grams, and shot out of pipe at the speed of light, all contain identical energy – but one will blast right through things the other won’t, due to the amount of energy per unit volume.
I said that already but it rather bears repeating.
When a typically more centric electron captures a concentrated photon, the identical characteristics that made it entangle photonic energy of course make them all entangle it. It’s only proximity to the nucleus which determines how much light one can capture and not actually ionize and fly off the nucleus.
Normally photons in free space rotate when they encounter each other and don’t scatter each other very much. But when one becomes entangled, begins to resonate along with the electron, it is mutually opposing spin identity which cause the two, to resonate together : and locked with the electron now, the photon can no longer rotate freely and other electrons passing nearby, entangle part of the energy in the higher photonic concentration – this handoff in solid matter takes place in parallel since solid matter has it’s electrons pressed into a region much smaller than a gas will. In gases the electrons simply inflate their geometry and they repel each other and don’t hand off energy to each other very swiftly due to this.
In a solid, the electrons are condensed until they are a seething swarm, whose motions overlap and this causes them to sap off – to pick up energy from each other identically to the way a tight bundle of wires will all sap energy from one wire’s high energy pulse until the pulse dies out after traveling just a short distance.
The same parameters of hand-offf for electrons sapping and sharing photonic concentrations apply to the wires: the relative distance they are from each other, the time they dwell at various distances, and the angles at which they approach determine exactly how much each electron can take from any higher concentration bearing electron near it, and they share until any two are equal: once the two have identical concentrations there is no higher/lower energy gradient for energy migration to take place, in equalization of charges.
When they hand off energy to each other in this seething sea of parallel handoffs- sapping energy from each other till they’re equal – this is called “averaging distribution” and is what we know as conduction of energy through solids. Conduction of heat, as it were.
Again: there are four parameters before any energy migration is heat.
There is a higher energy concentration region
There is a lower energy concentration region
there is a boundary of some kind
temperature is mediated on one or both ends of the transaction.
Also Bob too much concision in explaining physics can be as, or more maddening, than too much verbiage so recall that if you could somehow insert a ruler into each of the different sized balls discussed as analogous to photons, a ruler spanning each of their (ostensibly I suppose internal) diameters would be a different length: so wavelength isn’t really an improper term in even that simplistic sense.
And of course this is also noted when – even when they all move at the speed of light – as entities in motion, each takes a different timeframe to pass by a given point in space one might use as a reference point.
The proof that photons are inhibited from emitting and not absorbed Bob, – even though the mathematics for both are effectively identical when discussing heat – is the fact that – the very reason energy is leaking out, is because there is a concentration behind it, internally, being dissipated from electron to electron, which has such concentration that a portion near the facet boundiing open space, is being dislodged and pressed out.
When electromagnetic energy interacts with itself, all transactions happen at the speed of light: whether it be magnetic or photonic, interactions take place at this speed, and it’s this speed, with which energy ejects into open space.
It’s also this speed at which parallel sharing between electrons seething close to each other in the lattice of solids occurs: averaging distribution. The reason conduction across an object takes time is because the electrons are sharing, handing energy off, in many directions at once: each electron in turn, encountering a higher concentration of captured electromagnetic energy – photonic energy when it leaves into space, referred to as generic electromagnetic energy when entangled and resonating with an electron –
each electron gaining some energy, hands some off until nearby relative charges are equal – again based on proximity, time in a given proximity, and angle of approach to each other.
This makes conduction of energy through a solid appear to take place at a speed slower than the speed of light: although each individual sapping, hand-off, happens at that speed. (speed of light).
I said it makes conduction appear to take place at a speed slower than the speed of light – the creep of energy across a solid takes awhile, based in fact on the arrangement of that particular substances’ electron lattice. Because most substances in scientific discourse are referred to as being in the crystalline configuration, the electron lattices don’t differ THAT much – but there is in fact some difference, and it’s this electron lattice configuration which determines how much the speed of conduction of energy through a solid, crystalline substance, varies.
Ok: peace out I have to move some furniture with my wife today so I probably won’t be back today I hope what I’ve said lends a sense of clarity to what’s happening with entanglement and emission.
Thanks for the effort, Allen E. I’ll read it all again.
Allen Eltor,
I ways take the trouble to carefully read your (often very long) posts, and they’re always colourful and interesting. Whilst most of what you said in your last ‘trilogy’ concurs with Charles R Anderson’s (another individual that I follow closely) article: https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/solving-parallel-plane-black-body.html
where, in his introduction, he says: “Numerous critics of the consensus science on catastrophic man-made global warming have argued that thermodynamics claims that energy only flows from the warmer body to the colder body, but the consensus scientists have argued that thermodynamics only applies to the net flow of energy. I have long argued that the reason that radiant energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler body is because the flow is controlled by an electromagnetic field and an energy gradient in that field. I will offer that proof in this paper”.
However, I am struggling with your assertion that all photons (irrespective of their wavelength) convey the same energy. I have always understood that the energy of any photon is determined by:
ɛ = h v
where h (Planck’s constant) is 6.626 x 10^-34 Js
You suggest that the wavelength of the photon is analogous to it’s ‘density’ and therefore, like that dense lead shot, photons with sufficiently short wavelengths (and corresponding high frequency) are able to ionise atoms whereas the ‘beach ball’ photon (having a longer wavelength) is not. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your analogy. Can you explain this again?
Hopefully it’s not too far off of this topic: Joseph has previously said, in his article: https://climateofsophistry.com/2015/05/16/ontological-mathematics-is-the-answer-to-ghe-based-climate-alarm/ that “…..the Lorentz transformations show that time stops for a photon, i.e. time is dilated to infinity, and they show that all space distance has shrunk to zero, i.e. length contraction is infinite”. By such means, Joseph has suggested that the photon does ‘know’ the energy density gradient across the source/target boundary and will not be emitted from the “colder source” towards a “warmer target” even if the potential target is light-years of distance away from the source. Again (and Joseph please correct me if I’ve misunderstood your point), it suggests that only ‘the purposeful’ photons are actually emitted from the source. From the Sun’s own perspective, it only receives photons being emitted by objects that are hotter than itself and consequently can not ‘see’ the Earth or any other body in the solar system except, perhaps, those photons that have emanated from hotter (than our Sun) stars and gamma radiation sources elsewhere in the universe that have been reflected from the cooler planet towards our Sun.
Joseph, more on the topic of energy density gradients would be very welcome.
Yeah Steve you’re right.I was driving and real tired and just startedd typing without thinking, Sorry Bob
Bob you’re going to have to check that I was driving and just spammed an erroneous post My bad and I’m still so tired, I’ve been hauling furniture.
Wow I’m awake now. * * *What an excellent come-uppance that I was telling everybody “I”m not EVER W R O N G! !!! ! !” and then IMMEDIATELY just write up stream-of-consciousness COMPLETE ERROR in relation to an ENERGY function vs a MASS function.
Maybe that’s how Harry Huffman observed he figured the atmosphere was heated more from the top than supposed.
I had just driven several hundred miles, down to Sacramento, loaded furniture, then turned and driven several hundred more and was sitting in a Del Taco eating, and thought I could just whip out several posts.
F** lol I feel so bad, because it turns those three speed posts into a kind of car wreck, that people who aren’t physics savvy, are going to read..*That’s the problem*
=========================================
I’m not really sure what to do, I don’t have editing privileges for my own writing there, so I can’t go back and clean it up. I was finding the analogy between mass particles-wave functions and massless ones too easy, and spammed along there as if I was impervious to getting off on the wrong tangent.
===========
Joseph I know you normally are VERY against editing things after they’re posted but by leaving the following in, it could trash someone’s education Joseph, can you * * *PLEASE:* * * go in,
and TAKE OUT the FOLLOWING from my POSTS? They were an ad hoc attempt to make an analogy that I brain farted over the course of about 20 minutes and wouldn’t check myself, and now it’s up there to mislead people. This is just TERRIBLE to do to OTHER PEOPLE because they will imprint that shit and it will stay in their heads for YEARS –
JOSEPH – i LOOKED through and I think those three Del Taco speed posts can be fixed of my erroneous analogy (darn my speed posting when I know I can’t clean something up)
Joseph open those posts and take out this –
=====================================================================
Photons also contain identical energy which is why Einstein named them ‘Quantum’ entities.
Observe that E = mc(squared).
If you have a lead pellet, a tennis ball, a larger child’s ball and a beach ball that all weigh 50 grams, and you fire them all at the speed of light, technically they all have the same energy.
However if you chalk a line on a bowling alley floor and roll each particle past measurements on that floor, each one will take a different time frame to pass a given point. The more concentrated mass of the lead pellet has a more concentrated wave function than the beach ball, even though all contain the same energy.
The lead one will also penetrate things the beach ball won’t due to this smaller wavelength function.
Any geometry has a waveform function: the amount of time it takes some entity to cycle through the space. In the case of photons, bluer light, is more concentrated: it’s wave function is smaller, the math describing it’s mass is different than the beach ball.
==========================================
JOE: ALSO just CHANGE the word NOT, to the word AND in this:
A more concentrated photon has more energy per unit volume – not more energy total.
It should be this: A more concentrated photon has more energy per unit volume – and more energy total
===============
Bob the analogy I made is a pretty good one even if my speed typing made me F*** it all up….
Uhm.. In case Joseph doesn’t get back right away, you can see how the analogy to the mass particles ACTUALLY works: I haven’t described this analogy to people for years and years but it’s a very good one, and you’ll see why people use it.
===================================
JOSEPH: JOE ! I HAVE a GREAT IDEA: like I say, I know you DESPISE editing things after someone prints them but we can clear up any PRETENSE of HIDING my ERROR.
We’ve got a copy of my improper analogy in this post. I’ll describe the ACTUAL analogy now, so people will be able to see in succession:
Steve’s post where he says “Allen, you made an error” and then they’ll see ME, writing all this,
* * *but the beginning students won’t have to try to sift through and say “I dunno, half the shit at Joe’s place is correct, but half of it’s filled with errors!” – THIS is DEATH to CLARIFICATION,and integrity in science communications, to leave errors STILL IN the ORIGINAL if it can come out,
especially since we’re gonna have a copy of the analogy done wrong, then corrected in this post.
Just take out the part I copy pasted, and change that word ‘not’ to ‘and’
and now I’ll correctly re-weight the analogy. I was SO tired last night guys, I couldn’t figure out how to NOT confuse people, particularly of course students who aren’t actual physical science professionals, teachers, this sorta thing.
==============================
ROBERT: the analogy PROPERLY WEIGHTED goes like THIS – “If you have three balls, all the same SIZE, and you MAKE them one of metal, one of wood, and one just say.. a standard children’s ball –
The MASS DENSITY of them DIFFERS – This DENSITY value difference in MASS particles, is very easily compared to ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY DENSITY concentrations in photons.
The part about the size differences was just me trying to type and be helpful letting whatever stream of consciousness popped in my head do the driving.(So to speak)
When I sat down and started typing I had been up, moving furniture then driving for 26 hours.
I didn’t get to sleep until I had been up, 40 hours.
Then I slept six more, got BACK up,
moved some MORE stuff around on the farm property here,
worked on a farm truck for awhile
then went BACK to bed.
I THEN came back
to see Steve had noticed where I had started typing
“All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, All Work And nO PLaY mAkEs jAck A dUll bOy,
aLL WoRK aND No PLaY MaKeS JaCK a DuLL BoY, ALLWORKANDNOPLAYMAKESJACKADULLBOY allworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboy”
(It’s a reference to that horror movie The Shining where a novelist went insane, and it was discovered he’d been busily typing alone in a spooky hotel for MONTHS and all he had written was the sentence above, formatted many different ways… 400 pages of it)
Last night, I came in, saw what Steve said, – and I was so tired I didn’t even go back over my own posts, I DID remember telling myself… wtF? as I was typing along, but we had to get back on the road, and I was trying to speed type, and let instantaneously derived “up for 26 hours working and driving” stream-of-consciousness be my guide.
LoL I’m trying to hurry up, this time too, my wife told me an hour and a half ago we need to leave.
Joe – one more time before my wife strikes me with a coffee mug PLEASE don’t LEAVE that ERRATA in the ORIGINALS ok? … Dude… Hey – I don’t think we can be accused of editing in order to hide personal failure on my part because the original errata are copy pasted into the correction request,
and then of course there’s me, Steve, Robert, and yourself, who all can very easily verify it’s the actual edit.
Peace guys REALLY sorry and I definitely promise no more speed typing after being up 26 hours.
My wife just told me she’s got something she can do for awhile, she told me ‘Hey -” and I said ‘HANG ON DEAR SORRY” and wrote the post I JUST published, and she said “I’m going into town for a few minutes (a little tiny town our farm house is technically inside the city limits of)
So I’ve got a few more minutes, and I wanted to again assert something that it’s very important for the entanglement-emissions physics student to NEVER forget – and additional information on how this was finally discovered to be true right down to the last photon.
I think you guys mostly saw me come over here to (another thread) and I linked to where I was over there at that hillbilly’s website called “Signts uh Duum” where the guy, was trying to TRAP people.
What he did was took a copy of some authoritative physics text discussing energy management by matter, and he copied a sentence that goes – you know I’m paraphrasing but the sentence is in SCORES if not HUNDREDS of physics texts, and it says ” (some light) strikes (some matter already emitting more concentrated energy) * * *and that is all absorbed* * *” and then Yada Yada Yada,
and the guy at signts uh Duum-duum says “Is this physics text CORRECT to the LETTER, or is it NOT? And explain why you say whatever you do.”
=====================================
The GUY had been MOCKING integrity in scientific communications people,
for telling everyone the “Magical GAissiNeSS dun turnt the cold atmusfear in two uh big oL HeeDuR” people are running a SCAM, because they describe entanglement/absorption/emissions of energy wrong.
And he was insisting, “You HAVE to answer me, with just YES or just NO.”
And, he was going on about how every fake-science skeptic he met, collapsed and went stone silent, when faced with his question.
But Ihappened to know the answer to the question because it’s like – one of THE – ONE of THE big
“trick questions” in ALL matter/energy//particle-wave//entanglement-emissions physics.
================================================================
And the WAY you can know the guy is running a f***ng CON is because he INSISTS
*that YOU only ANSWER him with a ONE-WORD answer, YES or NO.*
=======================================================
That’s HOW you KNOW
HE knows
HE’S running
a CON.
=======================================================
Because the correct answer *can not be, just yes – or no* and the reason he WANTS people to only answer “Yes/No” is so he doesn’t get busted.
=================================
The reason it’s sophistry, not the physics book but the guy insisting you only answer Yes or No
is because the answer can NOT be – just yes or just no.
Physics textbooks are written so they’ll get picked up hopefully and used as University texts. Obviously if you write one not fit for the purpose only three guys are ever gonna buy the book, and two of them might be the author’s agent, and his wife/significant other/ and his mom.
So they are written to not confuse people right? Ok – just as I was telling SunsetTommy that it is an engineering and general physics convention to refer to infrared as ‘heat’ interchangeably because if infrared ever LEAVES anything it is definitionally,
(a)energy from a higher concentration region
(b)crossing a boundary
(c)into a region of lower concentration
and that
(d) it’s wavelength mandates that temperature mediation takes place –
there are also,
other conventions in discussion of energy handling by matter, that are used, because
overlapping definitions
create a form of redundancy where two things, wind up having – effectively identical definitions.
One of these conventions, is the usage, of the term – the phrase guys – “the lower concentration energy ***strikes the higher energy-concentration emitting object, AND IS ABSORBED.***
There is a damned good reason people go ahead and use the phrase “and IS ABSORBED.”
It’s because of a feature of our little section of the multiverse, the universe we can lay a meter to, that the high mutual repelling of like atomic-level particle-wave entities – and it’s critical you can somehow tattoo into your head that this goes for both particles and energy –
like entities
are HIGHLY mutually repellent.
Protons don’t slam together and create super-protons of +2 charge. They rebound from each other each containing their (like hence repellent) +1 charge.
Electrons, the same way – when they collide they rebound – because LIKE CHARGES REPEL.
They don’t aggregate into -2 charge super-electrons, in nature.
And here’s where Signts-uh-Duum-Duum is conning. – He knows he’s doing this, too guys, I would find the link, it’s here somewhere, if you go look, when I called him on this he started getting all mealy-mouthed, and told me – just outright “Why don’t you go ahead and declare victory and leave?” – and actually HE – “just collapsed and got as silent as a tomb” or whatever the f*** his CON’S BLUFF had been that he had said about skeptical scientists trying to explain that his “Magical Gaissiness” con – is a CON.
Ok – photons, being a LIKE concentration of electromagnetism – ALSO MUTUALLY REPEL. POWERFULLY. In free space there’s some constructive and destructive interaction but the individual photons can rotate until they don’t rebound nearly as much, so this *DRAMATIC MUTUAL REPULSION* isn’t really encountered that often,
until one photonic concentration,
can’t get out of the way AND – can’t rotate to reduce angle-of-approach caused deflection.
Recall please that one of the characteristics of electromagnetic energy in general is that it deflects other electromagnetic energy and this deflection being expressed as that legendary “90 degree deflection when striking head on” is one of the things that shows us that these entities possess the characteristic called spin – spin identity is the phrase used a lot.
Well- photons exhibit this identical spin-identity mediated collision characteristic, but like I said – in free space, when they collide, they counter-rotate instantaneously, each in their own path, and this diminishes the deflection they exhibit such that for the most part, vision can pick up a light signal from something that pretty accurately describes the dimensions of whatever’s emitting and repelling some light. We can see because photons don’t all simply deflect, to a much greater degree in free space, they each of them in their own path, counter-rotate while continuing in their own path.
You can imagine that if say you were going to somehow hang two magnets, from two strings of fishing line, side by side, on like… fishing swivels – and if you slid them by each other on pulleys,
as they approached, head on, (you know- or almost so, we’re analogizing this relationship of approaching close to head-on) – when the two magnets approached and got RIGHT at that head-on collision part of their relationship, – each of them would FLIP – rotational deflection, requiring less energy than the entire magnet moving physically to the side.
It’s an analogy and it’s got it’s limits but.. it’s something that works right now. Rotational deflection reduces overall deflection of each photon just like this as photons pass each other.
Ok now – back to signts uh dum-dum’s dipshit con.
In reality, when energy is moving at the speed of light toward an object,
and also – when energy is migrating out of the edge of an object charged with some, and that energy is leaking back out into space, the lower concentration region,
incoming photons,
and
outgoing photons,
all get their impetus to travel, from being kicked away by yet other energy concentration, other captured photonic energy concentration in matter, kicked photonic concentrations out of that substance, and now it’s happening identically as other energy is trying to leave, our object being approached.
And the key here to having all this establish itself solidly in your mind is that – electromagnetic energy isn’t moving at the speed of light due to the relative speeds of the mass particles the energy entangles with, resonates with. The speed of light type deflection is a function of the energy areacting with itself like that.
And what this boils down to you see,
is that all light leaking out of your anvil
is pushed out
by light coming in elsewhere.
What’s the pressure of that light’s approach? It all approaches with identical speed.
So light coming in, is captured and entangles, at the speed of light.
Therefore,
whatever’s dislodged out on the other end, out on the end of Rudophy the Red-Nosed Anvil’s nose,
LEAVES
at the speed
incoming light arrives and is caught.
Light coming in at the speed of light
pushes light out of the other side – at the speed of light.
This, ultimately, defines a lot of what goes on in matter/energy entanglement/transfer/emissions.
Light striking at the back,
at the speed of light,
Kicks some light off the front – at the speed of light.
It was this identical principle that made the incoming free photon we discuss approaching some object – leave it’s own origin. Somehow, energy being propagated through some entity AT the speed of light, drove that photon out, AT the speed of light, TOO.
So when a free electron in space strikes the surface of an object, energy which was leaking out, is inhibited from leaking out, because the light is coming in at the back AT the speed of light –
and the light STRIKING – is ARRIVING – at the speed of light,
and at the moment of colliding with a surface, the photons bound to electrons, can’t counter-rotate like they are free again – they are kept in resonance with the electron by affinity for the electron’s and the photonic energy’s apparent spin potentials. This means their spin orientated identities.
Electrons with one spin identity, capture electrons with a complementary spin, and so on.
Opposite spin electrons tend to set up as pairs within orbits,
and the photonic energy they entangle possesses spin identity opposite that of each electron.
Opposite spins
attract,
Identical or like spins
repel.
Over and over
this situation comes up in particle/wave entanglement-emissions physics.
Okay: when a free photon comes in and collides at the speed of light with a surface, it’s the free photon that has to counter-rotate and ultimately then deflect – this creates charge-for-charge mutual repulsion that makes an identical charge of energy concentration be held in place, right at the surface of the atom where it is struck by the incoming photon.
The way we know you’re not having absorption is two separate tests.
Well.. there are like… several ways.
First off – it’s well known, that a mass can only entangle a certain amount of light, before it leaks out, or before electrons themselves become so highly energized they’re shaken off the material from sheer energization. When you strike an object with so much energy it’s electrons begin to leave an object, themselves resonant with a very large energy charge – this is the very definition of ionization.
Ionization is the energizing of electrons on something till they just start drifting away from the +1attraction charge of that atom’s protons.
Once you charge any particular proton/electron configuration with so much light, – you reach a point where you start forcing electrons themselves off. And AT this POINT – it’s KNOWN from TESTS – you can’t add any more energy
and similarly – almost identically –
you can only add a certain amount of light to these electrons, thus bound in whatever physical matter configuration with some protons – before light of a certain color, starts to leak OUT.
So it’s VERY well known you can only put a certain amount of light in an electron lattice before the lattice leaks light of a certain concentration.
When the electrons within a mass hand off captured energy to surface electrons from ONE side – they leak that light out the other side.
When you bathe that exposed facet with a stream of electrons of certain concentration potential, this stops electrons from leaking into that space because there IS no GRADIENT.
And then ultimately after WWII this concept was proven to be true another way. People working with electron mediated energy transfer in the field of microwave, fire energy concentrations not down a solid entity to be absorbed, but down what’s called wave-guide – the wave lengths are short and they will skitter down the inside walls, of a hollow pipe, with less overall absorption/converstion singnal transport attenuation, than down a solid object like coax.
After WWII LOTS of people had been exposed to science in the military and also LOTS of people needed to get educations. So the comunications fields financed huge numbers of grants, for research into how to fire a more reliable stream of communications related energy across spaces, valleys, states, mountain-to mountain – using less power, with ever greater reliability of signal capture and so forth.
Eventually people began to construct for research purposes, smaller and smaller versions of these microwave guides and they figured out how to create pockets, which were just the size needed that a particularl class of energy group would be captured due to thei energy pulses’ wavelength function being identical to the physical geometry of these capture points and these points, are called ‘cavity’ capture and emission points, because – that’s what they are, physically: a point where tthe wave guide is no longer a smooth pipe, they etch or cast a void of a specific size in one end or wherever and put a tiny antenna stub so energy resonating in that cavity, can be picked off and carried away for further processing/analysis.
Obviously people interested and versed in the characteristics of one form of electromagnetic radiant transfer, are savvy in another type and it wasn’t long before people figured out definitively that these waveguide/cavity configurations, – they operate basically nearly identically to light, being captured by matter in nature.
Over the years of research worldwide, after world war two, everyone but everyone now had access to telephone technology and students leaked their discoveries about the similarities and differences in all these radiant transfer situations, like a seive.
The various militaries were HEAVILY involved in funding these communications grants and tried to keep their discoveries secret but students are just students and they like to talk, and spies for various governments, intelligence people who were governmentally and ideologically loyal and concerned for their various nations’ political and business accomplishments, were working as the professors in these organiations and THEY- leaked like a sieve, anything THEY found out.
And this is why, there is no real definitive paper, which says with someone’s name at the top, ”we have discovered that energy can not get INTO an object already EMITTING energy of THAT particular concentration.
* * *many avenues both related to the mathematical AND the physically observed occasions of radiant transfer, DEFINE ENERGY as NOT ABLE to get INTO a resonant region which has already FILLED it’s entanglement potential with ALL the ENERGY that resonant electron geometry or microwave cavity geometry can hold before it leaks.
And THIS is WHY you can know the signts uh duum-duum guy doesn’t want you to give ANYTHING but a YES or NO answer to his dipfuck con attempt.
The correct answer to the signts uh duum-duum guy’s question about “the matter strikes and is all absorbed” – even though it’s lower energy light/heat/ whatever you wanna call it –
is that – since the mathemaics of absorption and the mathematics of emissions inhibition by energy bathing a surface are identical, the energy can be CALCULATED as being ABSORBED – but in actual FACT, what REALLY happens is energy simply can not LEAK – where there isn’t a gradient for that energy to leak into, and is therefore retained in the material that would otherwise leak it out if the region off it’s exposed facets – is being bathed by a concentration of incoming light.
He KNOWS he is running a con, that’s why he doesn’t want you to SAY this to him: in energy handling by matter the mathematics of absorption and of emissions inhibition, are for PURPOSES of teaching ENGINEERING STUDENTS energy handling and HEAT REMOVAL in industry – identical.
The frictionless, lossless interaction between photons, where two strike and one can not counter-rotate and the two simply bypass each other, do not create losses when the photons strike, they create charge-value for charge-value, photon-for-photon class INHIBITION of LEAKAGE or EMISSION by MATTER as LONG as the incoming stream of energy continues to bathe some exposed facet.
Ouch I just put up a huge post and it didn’t publish.
Well… maybe it’s going to come up. It was in relation to the nature of how we know that energy isn’t being physically absorbed by an object already emitting energy concentrations equal to that which are incoming…
We know this because we can load energy into a certain volume of matter and it always starts leaking energy at levels which are mediated, by the composition or concentration characteristic of the energy region just off that bject’s surface.
I don’t think that post is going to appear and I wrote for a long time -in fact my wife and I put off leaving to take another load of furniture because I wouldn’t get up from the computer, and you can see the time stamps between the last post I put up ending in the sentence “Up for 26 hours”
and this post.
I’d been typing that long – hit ”post reply” and – it just vanished. My wife and I have to go we aren’t going to be able to put off the entire day’s work because I like to type about physics and entanglement/emissions in nature and the laboratory,
Later guys sorry about the terrible train wreck of analogy I trashed being so dead-from-the-neck-up tired.
How does an infrared detector adjust for the environment to “see” a colder body, when the detector is INSIDE the warmer body? Again, I don’t imagine that the detector is just “parting the sea” of the warmer body’s particles to make a tunnel for the colder body’s particles to get to its sensors to register.
It seems that the colder body’s particles MUST be reaching through the warmer body’s particles without doing much. Are the colder body’s particles translating through space somehow with lower energy, or are the colder particles translating through space at about the same speed as the warmer particles BUT with some sort of greater INTERNAL energy (whatever that is)?
Okay, so we have a gradient between warm and cold body. In this gradient, are the particles from each body intermingling with equal density throughout the entire distance between the two bodies?, … or do the colder body’s particles gradually thin out, as we move closer to the warmer body, while the warmer body’s particles gradually thin out as we move closer to the colder object?
… and those “thinned out” colder-body particles are what the infrared detector senses?
I guess I’m wondering what a gradient looks like from a particle perspective?
My wife told me she can go somewhere with our other son today, she took him to the dentist cause we were gonna leave, so fast.
When you have the question of whether energy can actually enter matter, there is a situation where another,
very
VERY common convention is used, it’s the phrase over at Signts uh dum-dum where the guy asks scientific speakers relating the fakery of any radiative green house warming, to answer ONLY yes or ONLY no.
Some revered physics book – I’m sure copied, because it IS A CONVENTION in PHYSICS and ENGINEERING – uses a paragraph thus ” Object emitting higher frequency light is struck by lower frequency light AND IT IS ALL ABSORBED.” And the physics book goes along and says calculate zippity doo dah, inside some circle of life or somethin, and he says “IS THIS PHYSICS BOOK CORRECT or NOT: YES or NO?
This is a VERY common scam by the magical gaissiness brigade hicks.
They claim that because energy striking something is entering – it is.
The catch to this is that we know for a fact two things: energy bound within the confines of resonance with it’s opposite spin potential electron and that entanglement, can’t simply counter-rotate out of reacting with incomming photons and they repulse the incoming photons that aren’t as high concentration as themselves,
and
simultaneously
photonic leakage is stopped on a photon-for-photon basis, by this impingement.
See at that level nothing is flat and all collisions with light, except some things students, and engineers craft which have extra-ordinarily regularly aligned surfaces to get some effect or other – photons striking the atoms are able to resonate normally, you know, perfecly well within any geometry occupied by a similarly sized electron (me and my messed up analogy actually failing in the mass/energy analogy by misrepresenting it as some kinda change in size – well nevermind about that mental blowout for now)
so – one of the points here is that the electrons and photons normally collide at not just one point, but the photon even one deflected by striking the proton center region, the nucleus – it slams into a relatively very rough surface and even skittering across at a flat angle, it still means traveling more sideways than straight into a sea of electrons all of which are loaded with some photonic energy so… you have a lot of impeding any emission because it doesn’t have to be straight-on contact like two rocks hitting – one coming out of a pipe, one slamming into the end of it –
there’s the rotational element to this, and these photons reactions to each other being based in a high motion component to the free photons striking a bed of electrons, and the electron bound photonic energy that’s oozing between all the associated electrons during averaging distribution which I said is ruled according to exactly the same rules as a buncha wires tightly bound together, then pulsing a powerful energy pulse down one. The legendary “180 degree” or better known as 90 degree deflection of spheres hitting head on is a function of distance angle of approach and the time any given entity is there to participate in some measurable or significant-enough-that-we’d-care hand-off-to-equality level leakage
Ok so when you strike the bed of electrons on an exposed facet of matter with a photonic stream leaked from something else, when it left that something else there was some temperature mediation, and also –
please don’t tell me “this can’t be true” – think about it – the math tells you there is a registering of the presence of that lower intensity flux field, it’s proven by the temperature of your resister, in the sealed, otherwise dark box, in the trunk of the car in Phoenix on July 1, and the temperature of that same resistor in that same box, on Jan 1 in Antarctica.
Run your energy through it and the resistor gets warmer both places yet in Phoenix it glows off that little extra few watts you ran through there at a much, MUCH higher, temperature.
Because lower energy light, prevents emission of light off atoms it strikes (well…electrons) on a photon-for-photon basis.
It IS proper convention to refer to lower concentration heat, and higher concentration heat.
Even
in
stopping energy from leaking out
energy is
affecting temperature
of something it inhibits emission from:
just like the old freshman class analogy (run, he’s gonna analogize again !) about some kind of tank type thing maybe a cylinder, and you begin simultaneously, very gently filling the tank with colored water, or of some temperature so you can keep them straight about who’s on first, who’s on second, –
and you fill the surrounding containment pond or pool at the identical rate, like if you tied two floats together, so they fill evenly on both sides somehow – you will not have pressure-differential class drift across those holes.
And this is identical to the spread of electromagnetic energy captured then distributed through electron-to-electron hand-off in matter – where there is equality of concentration of (this analog, pressure, or real electromagnetic energy) on both sides of any boundary there is no method to create flow. We refer to flow all the time in energy handling: “do you have flow, or not? How much?” Which direction?
Well when you start doing analogs in nature, energy as pressure matches on an almost one-to-one basis all the way across the testing parameters and characteristic actions spectra.
Electromagnetic energy migrates because of electromagnetic energy. Not because of the matter it sometimes resonates on, or with, but because other energy coming in – or lack of it on one side of some electron-electron relationship: as they pass, maybe bound closely so they don’t really get to move much, – they hand off energy for one reason and one reason only: the gradient is there to create a pressure-analogous flow condition.
When it equalizes all flow stops, and the entire spectrum of comparisons is true down a long list of checks and observed action/reaction events.
Also we know from the microwave business. Radiant communications encompasses the field of microwave emission and microwave emissions will crawl along inside a pipe with just air or nitrogen in it, with very, very few losses, because they orientate a little antenna pin to exploit travel from one end of any particular pipe to the other, such that the energy skitters along without being absorbed at all. Or rather hardly at all there’s some sapping of energy by electrons that get passed but they try to emit the energy in such way that it doesn’t interact with the walls of the pipe much.
This makes the feed lines for the stuff cheap as just plain pipe and you don’t need heavy, expensive copper line as big around as a coffee cup to transmit energy across a valley between two mountains at a rate that you want.
Those feedlines to the microwave dishes you see on some towers aren’t full of anything but typically some nitrogen to keep water from beading and disrupting the surfaces inside… rusting them, all this.
And when they get to the end down there the people who discovered how best to make microwave class energy – both in comms and sensing radar, the similar wavelength signals are fired and caught, analyzed and separated – how to make it efficient –
they discovered that if they shaped the end of the pipe they fired at, they could improve the characteristics of the energy emission AND capture just better.
The surrounding matter
helped orientate the fired burst of energy.
Before long people started checking closer, closer, closer
and this is identical to what happens when electrons fire or capture energy.
Since it’s electromagnetic energy
Since it’s all mediated by electron capture and emission whether it’s wanted, or unwanted interactions,
the identical rules apply to microwaves firing down lines and being caught
cause the guide is just to stop interference from other signals, and stuff, to isolate the pretty much 70% vacuum of everyday air pressure –
they started comparing electron/photon experiments and got where they could predict perfectly what light and radiant communications energy bundles were going to do: watching them both, then predicting by forming the microwave cavities to induce various events.
Like.. partial absorption, this sorta thing, in experiments in universities… and the reason you can’t be pointed to any real “the big paper is out” type thing in this,
is because this was all discovered mostly after WWII in universities where every dorm had a phone. And every single teacher was an ex military communications/electronic intelligence type who typically, had strong if not profound political feelings about his country, his grant provider – often as not some military project for better military communications –
so the universities of the world leaked like sieves as people began to realize this stunning comparison of microwave cavity and energy handling
is identical to how a bunch of electrons fire out and catch energy.
Every time there was an advance of any kind, all people had to do was figure out who was working on a project and they knew what sorta things they liked, the opposing military would infiltrate the university and just send someone to walk in the lab and recount later what equipment was there and how it seemed to be deployed…
spying was rampant in the grant-provided atomic/microwave/RADAR communications world then so
that’s why you have no “big paper” on the matter.
There actually are two big ones so claimed listed in all books that are seriously explaining the history of the matter but it’s pretty ceremonial because people from the era would tell you when teaching about them that – these papers were so SOMEONE could be nominated as ‘discovering’ the astonishingly identical reaction of atoms, electrons, and then microwave pins firing into and out of shaped cavities made of just plain old metal.
So don’t ever let someone tell you that those photons are actually absorbed. Experimenters fired nearly identical microwave test shots down lines, then simply reversed polarity or altered them so they could see what happened, when something being pushed OUT of a microwave antenna,
was struck by something else – of every conceivable shape, size, yada yada…
The microwave work
was and still can replicate the emission and capture of light
i.d.e.n.t.i.c.a.l.l.y.
and we KNOW
that there is something happening there which is as close to any absorption as anyone will ever
EVER actually get:
it’s called
non thermalized re-emission and what that means is this: if you raise the pressure on an antenna till a bundle of energy is JUST about to squeeze off and plop! drip, emit off into space due to slooowly built pressure then held perfectly in time – if you strike it with a bundle of incoming energy,
you can dislodge the packet of energy on the pin
and have the incoming one sit there in it’s place like a ball that just struck another: and settled into the same little divot in the carpet, the original ball was in.
This is NOT
that packet
actually ever moving anywhere BUT – the PRECISE little lobe where the original photonic packet was – I’m sorry microwave, photon, the point IS that this discussion is interchangeable – where the original microwave burst was being held on the radiant antenna pin down at one end of yoN waveguide.
This is a FACT.
And I guess it’s about the only place in ALL of physics whether applied or theoretical
where you encounter the term
Non thermalized Re-emission.
There is – I think ONE place where this invented term, applies. Light being knocked off a lobe around an electron sticking out on some facet, and being replaced by the very photon that knocked it off.
Again: the mathematics are those of INHIBITION of EMISSION.
ANYONE
who EVER tries to tell you maybe
will be LOST inside ten minutes, MOST likely because if you DON’T know how it was DISCOVERED then you have no way of KNOWING how WELL we know it is TRUE.
The radiant communications business CEMENTED in PHYSICS STONE the REAL term,
Non thermalized re-emissions for this VERY thing. Obviously such generic physical sciences terms so placed were the realm of hypothesis before, but the microwave and radar fields after WWII
PROVED this to be EXACTLY how it is
and the mutual repulsion nature of photons when one can’t counter-rotate to deflect as when both are free photons, one not BOUND to the complementary spin-potential of an electron the photon’s entangled on and resonant with – it’s JUST like the scientific analysis according to math AND other observed physics SAY it should be.
When many similar things predict something is going to turn out EXACTLY a certain way and NOTHING indicates otherwise finally
and you build some toy and find you can replicate these activities to the point you have a predictive model, one for the other,
you’re on, and that’s all there is to it.
Not maybe, Not sorta, we KNOW what happens, by simply tagging radiant energy bursts then firing them into and out of spots that have geometries identical to surfaces at the Angstrom-distance sizes on exposed facets of matter: their protons, their electrons, then the energy moving around within them until that energy kicks off into space, PUSHED
by a HIGHER concentration
built up BEHIND the kicked-off energy packet.
So I wanted to say that this morning and did, hit energy, and *poof* it just hung a second.. and vanished.
Later guys
Okay, I just read one of JP’s other posts, and have taken note of the following quote:
We think of a photon as travelling ‘from here to there’, but this is a totally anthropocentric material-based non-relativistic conception, and hence has no ontological validity whatsoever in terms of a statement of how reality functions.
So, I guess part of my difficulty is that I am NOT thinking like a photon. (^_^)
Alas, I am a sensory being guided by a feel for tangibles and the associated non-photon-like logic that perpetuates this grand, delightful illusion.
Look at this dumb bastards comment:
CM: “In that event, the entire 32 K difference between the natural temperature in 1850 and the emission temperature is the feedback response to emission temperature itself.”
So their entire physics here is that the emission temperature causes…the emission temperature. That’s what he just said, and that’s their physics. Morons! He pretends he’s identified the fundamental error of climate alarmism. Nope…idiot. Not even close. And when anyone mentions to him what it actually is, he loses his shit and threatens to sue. I don’t know how many times this disgusting moron has threatened to sue me…lol!!!! God I HATE that guy. I truly hate him, with all my being.
I’m glad you ventured over there to read what I predicted would be a comment-heavy post at WUWT. I attempted to play with the kiddies with MY comment here:
I apparently irritated Nick Stokes, as he made a rare comment to yours truly (moi), objecting to my characterization of “apportioning” as “nonsensical”, trying to claim that such “apportioning” is not done, which was NOT the point anyway. The point was that the DIFFERENCE itself should NOT be a benchmark at all. It is fat elf posing as a legitimate mathematical difference — in other words, a cartoon character, … a non-reality, … an absurdity. Yet Nick wants to argue about how to properly discuss an absurdity, without admitting that he is missing the overriding absurdity itself that I am attempting to point out.
Or, as JP (Joseph Postma) put it so well in one of his long articles,
Thermodynamics says that it is only the ground surface + atmosphere aggregate system
average which should be in equilibrium with the Sun, at an average temperature of -18 C
and that this temperature will NOT be found specifically at the ground, but well above it in the
atmosphere. The average ground temperature will be higher than the average equilibrium
temperature with or without greenhouse gases. It is fundamentally incorrect to compare the
radiative equilibrium temperature of -18 C to the ground temperature, because these are not
the same physical concepts. The ground temperature is a-priori a different physical metric
than the radiative equilibrium temperature, and comparing them is physically incorrect.
Before I attempt to confront Monckton in any commentary, I’d like some thoughts on the basis of his claim: that emission temperature itself induces substantial feedback.
This seems like bullshit (to be not so polite). How does emission temperature “induce” anything? To induce means to cause. To cause means to have a physical, locational relationship with an entity. The emission temperature does not have a real location in any one location, to have any one relationship serving to establish a cause/effect judgment.
WITHIN the Earth/atmosphere system, the emission temperature does NOT exist — it exists as a measure, viewing from outside this system … , as a sort of average of all the atmospheric layers, viewed in a collective effect. It is a RESULT of ALL causes, a MEANS of DESCRIBING causes, NOT a AGENT of cause itself.
This temperature does NOT have a location of application to “cause” anything. It, therefore, cannot “induce”. It is a characterization, … a description, … a classification, … NOT a causative agent. Or am I thinking about it wrong?
Well…the emission temperature is a RESULT of having been heated…not the cause of heating and temperature…in the case of the passive atmosphere. The RGHE reasoning he uses is circular logic. Hence false.
A temperature, in and of itself, seemingly cannot “cause” anything. Emission temp seems like such an all inclusive thing … that to say it can be directed in such a way as to cause anything is just logically absurd. There is no one stream of energy preceding its determination that could act to cause anything. It is the RESULT of many causes, as you might say. It is the RESULT of having been heated by these causes, NOT the cause of something’s being heated.
Monckton’s thinking seems like backwards-thinking sophistry at its best-worst. … crap dressed up to appear as craft.
Here’s the thing though: If he can use crap to help dislodge crap, then what helluva triumph of poetic justice. (^_^)
So, here was my reply to Monckton:
JP,
Please please write a new article. This one has too many comments and causes my browser to crash. Maybe a psychology piece about the link between micropenis and alarmism.
Thank you.
Well, to further aggravate AfroP,
I will add yet another comment to make his browser crash harder. (^_^)
Monckton responded to me, and here is how I am planning to reply:
Mr Kernodle suffers from the same difficulty as many others on both sides of the debate.
This must be a new definition of “suffering”, because I feel no pain. Perhaps it is not suffering at all, but rather comfort in greater insight that Lord Monckton has not yet acquired.
He [“Mr. Kernodle”] cannot understand how an entire temperature such as the Earth’s 255 K emission temperature, can induce a feedback response.
More precisely, “he” [I, “Mr. Kernodle”] cannot understand how Lord Monckton can posit causative force to an effective measure like emission temperature.
Emission temperature IS itself. It cannot further cause itself to be. Other factors cause it. It is what it is because of all those factors. CO2 partly causes it, but, not in ways or to an extent that popular explanations pose that it does.
So let me explain, yet again, that a temperature feedback, denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that induced it, is a feedback to a temperature.
Okay, look at this sentence written as follows: So, let me explain, yet again, that a temperature feedback, … , is a feedback to a temperature. [You see, I omitted the qualifying phrase, denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that induce it].
A wedding gift is a gift to a wedding. What really is being said in such a sentence? It seems to be a tautology [the saying of the same thing twice in different words].
That temperature may be either an entire temperature or a temperature change, or a sum of the two. The feedback mechanisms cannot distinguish between the two. They cannot @jbow@ that the must not react to the first 255 K of temperature but must then react violently to the next 8 K of temperature.
The phrase, “feedback mechanisms” seems elusive to me. Stuff happens — okay, what stuff? — what mechanisms? And mechanisms have no cognitive ability to distinguish anything. This manner of speaking forces human traits on inanimate entities, and so it seems like the wrong way to be speaking. That 255 K is a MEASURE of the mechanisms, NOT a cause that induces actions of those mechanisms (whatever they might be) — any inducing is already contained in that measure. The 255 K is the description of cause, NOT cause itself.
The effect of the temperature feedbacks can of course be measured. We know that natural temperature in 1850 was 32 K greater than the emission temperature.
“Natural temperature” here I assume is what we might call “global average temperature”. This is a measure of near-surface temperature within a very restricted range of Earth’s surface. Emission temperature, on the other hand, is a measure of an aggregate temperature, in effect, averaged throughout all depths of Earth’s atmosphere from surface on upwards to multiple kilometers in altitude, and its “location” is much higher up in the atmosphere ABOVE the surface to which this analysis tries to compare it.
Why, then, is it logical to compare a near-surface average to what is, in essence, a high-in-the-atmosphere average? THIS is my gripe. Using this comparison to say ANYTHING, thus, is nonsense, as I currently see it.
Climatology (e.g. Lacis 2010) estimates that about 8 K of this is directly-forced warming from greenhouse gases. The remainder of that measured difference is feedback. At present, climatology falsely imagines that all of that feedback originates as a result of just 8 K warming. In fact, it originates as a result of (255 + 8) = 263 K temperature. It really is as simple as that.
8K of a nonsensical mathematical difference is also nonsensical. Nonsense is not a basis for a scientific proof. Climatology, thus, is doing far-more-deeply-flawed manipulations than even Lord Monckton tries to expose. But, as I have said elsewhere, if nonsense can form the basis of an even better form of nonsense to do away with the nonsense that inspired it, then poetic justice could not get any better than this.
[I haven NOT posted it at WUWT yet. Should I ? Is it worthy ?]
Oh, I forgot, AfroP,
3 … 2 … 1 … CRASH !
It’s a circular argument. 255K is making itself 288K because 255K sees itself. Dumb. His entire argument is circular logic of the RGHE. He’s a flat earther. Also the thing about the difference between near surface temperature and the actual emission temperature etc….comparing things which make no sense.
Haha, keep teasing me but you know I’m right. JP has enough material for an article. He must be experiencing writer’s block. It happens.
We are addinf carbon to o2 and in theory making the atmoaphere heavier, but we are also pumping air into the ground to extract the oil (oil wells are not vacuums). So what is the overall effect? I can’t imagine it being more than 0.01C, if even that.
Good day, gentleman.
Moncky must be upset that even Jamaicans can figure out he’s full of crap. Credit: JP.
Rob,
A warmer sensor can register a colder body because the warmer body heats the colder. You get a negative voltage on that part of the sensor. Simple.
About that link between micropenis and alarmism, AfroP:
Clearly, the alarmist insists that HIS has a huge impact.
Let us now compare the length of a tree limb to the length of a human limb and draw some profound conclusions. If we can compare emission temp to surface temp, then why not ?
LoL I lit Monckton up one time, and, most of you won’t realize this but all these fakes have a favorite political posture they just take an almost intoxicated delight in dancing around, about. Monckton’s is “poor creatures can’t understand the mathematics of a cold nitrogen bath, being a magical heater.”
So Magic Gas Tony does his best to keep people from questioning the story about the Magical Gaissiness what dun…yew noe, turn’t uh cold nitrugin bayuth in two uh big oL HeeDuRiZiN mufus, with a GianTiny “control knob” what dun made awl that other stuff look more tame than whin thim
othur
guvurmint fellurs,
discovered abowt the devil weed, bein jist laike heroYn, and werse fur yew than methyl amphetamines,”
yaw…
but in any case, I put together some anonymous vpn/anonymous i.d. and went and told Monckton,
“Hey Monckton, when you show me and these other readers that OTHER cold nitrogen bath that is a heater, you won’t be the quack-0-dynamics barking, CRaNK you are NOW. Also, show me an instance of insulation suspended between a fire and rock, reducing surface energy density of the rock, not being cooling.”
He’d been going On and On about how ‘how come yaw doant buhlieve thim guvurmint fellurs what’s got bow ties, and yewnuversity duhgrease, and repyatayshuns two up hoald, an’ evurthang?”
and I told that, or whatever it was that I said, LoL, and I showed my wife, how he just went silent in the water on that one, and about … oh, a couple of weeks later, I showed my wife, I said, “See how I told ya I was gonna change Monckton’s personality?”
And Monckton’s headline/byline, for his new article was something along the line of ”WE HAVE ALL BEEN LIED TO!!!!!” and it went on you know, about ‘these scurrilous critters,’ and all this, and I showed my wife, and she was like… OmG…. because I had taken her BACK and showed her, Monckton making fun of “not buhlievin in guvurmint fellurs what couldn’t lye two us awl and wair thim speshil bow ties, and lab coats, and thim i.d cards around thair necks so’s thay can git in the climittie playsis,”” YaW…
My wife and I laughed about that for MONTHS… I’m laughing out loud right now typing about it LoL it was SO funny… I told her, ”These f**Ng frauds can have their personalities changed if you catch em in mid swagger and make em look like idiots in front of an entire crowd,”
Oh, I’m STILL laughing out loud at it, I see after about four years, he’s back up to his origional stunts… Maybe three years, but I think it was like four or so years ago I caught him over at Fat Tony’s Magical GAissiness Emporium.
Ka-BaNG. DoH!!!!…. LoLoLoL… don’t feel bad if you feel like you’re being played along Robert, that’s all a lot of Brits have to do – try to compare arrogance with the entire world. Monckton pretends to understand about a cold nitrogen bath, heating up the light warmed rock it’s conduction chilling.
Peace on ya, integrity in science communications-concerned citizens of (Yon World, and places generally like it) LoL… “We HaVe ALL BeeN LiED To!!!!”
Robert I can’t for the life of me remember what the actual verbatim exchange was, b
ut it was one of those designed to make him look like an idiot in front of inquiring fifth graders, TWICE, … lol and so HELP me I told my wife
“Look, I cought TwinKeRBeLLe in mid magical fairy gas sprinkle,
his personality’s gonna change and he’s gonna stop telling everybody they have to believe
“The speshul fellurs with bowe-tyes and thair own parkin spaces at guvurmint buildin’s an’ what-not, meanin thay cain’t lye,
it ain’t in thair jeans,
cause thay’s signtsie
guvurmint Men.”
He LOVES to posture that way, Robert, so he’s going to continue to sophist around in circles, until you just stop him in his tracks with something about… I dunno, why people who believe in RGHE calculate the temperature of the world’s atmosphere, 33 degrees SHORT of the obviously-correct, International Standard Atmosphere,
or maybe some kinda swipe about the same people that believe what Monckton’s saying, thought Magical Mike Mann’s Hockey Stick Generator was “a whole new field of mathematics, climate math!”
LoL you’ve got him on the hook, buddy, set it so hard it hangs in one of his gills, and make everybody laugh at him.
Monckton is still at it at WUWT, in a third (I think) recent post about his emission-temperature error thing.
I’m just not seeing how emission temperature is a factor that can be discussed in this way at all. I do not see emission temperature as any sort of agent that could induce anything. And comparing that emission temperature to an increase in surface-temperature anomaly (which I think he is basically doing) seems even more wrong.
The fundamental basis of his reasoning seems to be wrong, even though it seems to have a high degree of internal consistency. But crap has its own internal consistency too.
Ever try to understand a professional astrology argument? It looks intelligent, but it’s pretty much mythology, yes?
He ASSUMES that the RGHE is true, that an emission temperature amplifies itself…because he can take a ratio of two different temperatures. Brain dead.
… “an emission temperature amplifies itself” … what could that even mean?
It seems to be an unnecessarily confused way of trying to state the obvious — that Earth’s emission temperature is a result of all factors producing it, and that an anomaly of a statistical average of NEAR-SURFACE temperatures cannot be reasoned to have the least effect on this, … or something like that.
I think some clarification on where emission happens might help my understanding.
Monckton claims that, in the absence of “greenhouse gases”, the emission-temperature surface is the same as the global-average-temperature “surface”. Even assuming that this were true, still are we talking about the same metric, when we compare emission temperature to global average temperature? I still do NOT think that the temperature categories are the same, but I’m not sure how to explain why.
Emission temperature is calculated by a totally different methodology than global average temperature. The two temperature measures are based on seemingly totally different foundations, and so how can they possibly be representations of the same phenomenon?
I’m trying to think of another quantity that has such vast foundations for determinations, and I can’t thing of one right now.
… “vastly DIFFERENT foundations” … is what I meant to type.
Can’t compare radiant temperature vs physical temperature.
… and “think” … NOT “thing”. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
“Can’t compare radiant temperature vs physical temperature.”
Yeah, so why don’t those geniuses know this? How did they fail to learn this? Isn’t there a lecture in these folks’ educations that explains the difference and why a comparison is wrong?
Dunning Kruger. Educated enough to use big words. Stupid enough to not know how to use them.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999.
Joe,
I like what you have done with your thinking about the mythical “greenhouse effect” that has been used to justify a return to 50,000 BC style existence. I especially like your discussion of the real motivation of the climate alarmists. They hate the responsibility for being human so their clear intent is to destroy the products of the human mind even and especially at the cost of their own extinction along with everybody else.
Recent nova pbs presentation of climate science called decoding the waether machine is very good alarmist theater . Would like to hear your science based response and wonder if anyone could produce a similar presentation that is based on real climate science.
I propose that the title of the science-based counter-response should be … Decoding the Climate Alarmist Machine … produced by Joseph Postma, when he makes his mega-millions to afford all those spiffy production techniques.
Here’s a link to the PBS (“Pure Bull Shit”) NOVA (“NOt Very Accurate) presentation:
http://www.pbs.org/video/decoding-the-weather-machine-vgqhot/?ff0eaddc=5589d08d&sf187337384=1
Here’s a written transcript of the entire PBS NOVA presentation:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/decoding-weather-machine.html?linkId=50655448
Maybe call it really decoding the weather machine and then show a consistent theoretical case that matches observations that does not include the spurious radiative greenhouse effect. The variability of the climate is almost certainly caused by solar variability interacting with dynamic phenomena of the oceans. The maniacal focus on the trace gases as the primary reason for climate change is retarding the necessary investigatiions into the real reasons for changes in climate.
Reading the transcript of this show is almost enough to drive one crazy with despair for the future of science education. The section on fourier and tyndall is so bad that is beyond laughable and done by people with advanced degrees. Aargh
There are lots of energy processes that determine the temperature at any one location on Earth. Each location on Earth has DIFFERENT processes that determine this general quantity, no matter how much mass is present, … no matter what the particular constitution of the masses might be, … no matter the complexity of the processes that lead to the final reading called “temperature”.
Temperature is an “intensive” quantity, right?
To average a bunch of these general (intensive) quantities as if all the masses, particular compositions, and complexities of processes were the same simply ignores those complexities, reduces those complexities to an “average” that does NOT exist in the complexity itself, and then serves as a concept on which to build statistical internal consistencies in a calculation process that merely speaks of the certainty of the calculation process itself, rather than speaking about the complexities that are ignored in arriving at the numbers used in the calculation process.
This is the first step in decoding the climate alarmist machine.
The second step is pointing out false statements about storm intensities and other such events that serve as eye-candy photographic subjects to convey false visual impressions of extreme events. The extremes actually lie in the level of effort to focus on capturing visuals of natural disasters that more people are doing with more money than has been used on this than ever before. It’s extreme production of programs to capture film and images of events that have always occurred, but never before captured with such cinematic excellence, which costs big bucks, requiring big funding to produce, write, perfect, air on TV, etc. The PRODUCTION efforts are extreme, NOT the events portrayed in the productions.
Wow what a bunch of a**holes.
Maybe only 2 other people in the world know what’s about to hit them. Robert knows. Tick tock ass faces.
Joe, I need help again. I have argued that the LWIR that CO2 absorbs and re-emits to the surrounding air and loses it’s heat to surrounding molecules and changes states to kinetic energy. The response I have gotten says that the surrounding air, unless it is a GHG, doesn’t absorb the energy from CO2 because the gasses O2 and N2, and others are not IR active. Help me out here, please!
George, if the person you are arguing with believes CO2 can “heat the planet”, you have to remember the rules: Either he doesn’t understand the relevant physics, or he is an idiot, or both!
So, all you can probably do is just enjoy the moment.
In your particular example, where he appears to be trying to use some science, just throw it back at him. For example:
“Yes, not all photons are always absorbed. That’s why “back-radiation” can NOT heat the surface.”
Then try not to smile as you watch smoke come out of his ears.
George,
You tell that moron that he claimed a cue stick hitting a cue ball can only transfer energy to the white parts of other balls by radiation only.
If he denies converting IR to mechanical energy, then he refutes his own co2-warming argument as well. Does he not?
geran and Afro, thank you for your replies. I need a fuller explanation how the LWIR that CO2 absorbs then re-emits to surrounding air (principally O2 and N2) can be changed to mechanical energy. The AGW argument says it is impossible for energy transfer to take place because those gasses don’t absorb IR.
geran, if you use the same name on Dr. Spencer’s blog, I read over there and rarely post but agree with you. Kudos for carrying the fight to them and especially that obnoxious clown David Appell. He claims a PhD in Physics. I can’t believe he’s as dumb as he comes across.
geran and Afro, thank you for your replies. I need a fuller explanation how the LWIR that CO2 absorbs then re-emits to surrounding air (principally O2 and N2) can be changed to mechanical energy. The AGW argument says it is impossible for energy transfer to take place because those gasses don’t absorb IR.
geran, if you use the same name on Dr. Spencer’s blog, I read over there and rarely post but agree with you. Kudos for carrying the fight to them and especially that obnoxious clown David Appell. He claims a PhD in Physics. I can’t believe he’s as dumb as he comes across.
Please erase on of my duplicate posts. I was doing a test.
Hmmm….. my two posts are awaiting moderation. I must have done something wrong in them. I am sorry.
To geran and Afro, I tried to respond to you both but that comment needs “moderation”. I did it twice. Thank you both for your replies! I appreciate it.
George, yes that’s me you see over on Spencer’s blog. I have fun debunking the nonsense from the clowns like “jelly appelly”. I had hopes I could help Spencer, but he’s censored me again. I suspect he is a lost cause.
I’m not sure I understand your question, but I’ll attempt an answer. CO2 can transmit energy by either emitting a photon, or by collision. While a N2 or O2 may not absorb the photon emitted by CO2, it is still possible a collision could transfer energy.
Am I even close to what you are wondering about?
geran, that is a close explanation. AGW advocates claim there is no energy exchange between a CO2 molecule and non IR absorbing gasses like O2 or N2. Therefore, they say that energy goes through the atmosphere to the surface, even if that energy travels through 1000 feet of other gasses to get there. I find that to be ludicrous. The explanation, which you gave comes close to explaining (thanks!), that I need to know is how the energy can be exchanged from that CO2 molecule that just absorbed some LWIR to adjacent molecules that aren’t LWIR active, like N2 and O2. That would explain why there is no greenhouse effect which I believe does NOT exist.
George,
If I may, I think you’re getting slightly confused. Easy to happen if you listen to (or read) most of the stuff on Dr Spencer’s blog (geran and a few others excepted).
When a CO2 molecule absorbs LWIR from the warmer surface (in this case), it gains internal energy (you can think of this as thermal energy) and becomes warmer (but NOT as warm as the surface). In absorbing this extra energy, the CO2 molecule vibrates more. It can lose the energy it gained in two different ways:
1. It can collide with numerous adjacent molecules and transfer some of its newly acquired energy through physical contact (called inelastic collisions). If you are a deaf person sitting next to (touching) someone who has just heard a good joke, his/her shoulders moving as he/she laughs is transmitted to you through contact but, crucially, you did not hear the joke.
2. It can emit some (a small amount) of radiation at a slightly shorter wavelength than it was before it absorbed the incoming LWIR. However, this emitted radiation can only be transferred to molecules which are able to absorb such radiation (so-called GHGs). These are not deaf, they can ‘hear the joke’ so they do not need to be in contact with the emitter to laugh.
However, MOST of the energy lost by the emitter is through collisions, not radiation! There are possibly thousands of collisions between the time the CO2 molecule absorbs and the time it re-emits (it’s not really re-emitting because it is a different frequency, it’s actually just emitting).
As for ‘backradiation’, the emitted radiation from the atmospheric CO2 has NO thermal effect on the surface because the surface is warmer than the CO2 molecule in this – and almost every – case. The intensity of the downgoing ‘back radiation’ is not enough to increase the internal energy of the surface molecules which are already at a higher energy state. Hence there is NO heating of the surface by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Zero, zilch, none.
It will be at this point that the idiots will try to tell you that, actually, adding CO2 retards the rate of cooling. Scientifically they might be on slightly firmer ground here but the process has now changed from warming through backradiation (not possible) to being insulated! Unfortunately for them and their deluded reality, there are two problems with this idea:
a. CO2 is not a good insulator, and
b. There is simply not enough of it to make any measurable difference to ‘global temperature’, whatever that is.
Sorry to ramble but I hope this helps.
By the way, the best David Appell put-down I have ever seen is this one by Harry Dale Huffman:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html?showComment=1315610102043#c8088496518242281413
Cracking stuff!
Kind regards,
Arfur
George, the energy exchange between CO2 and O2/N2 is largely due to molecular collisions, as described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction
But you seem to be more aware of the sophistry of “heating the surface”. (Your description word “ludicrous” is most applicable.)
The “back radiation” from CO2 does NOT heat the surface.
Again, you stated it so well: “That would explain why there is no greenhouse effect which I believe does NOT exist.”
geran, thanks again for the reply and link. That does help.
Arfur, your response was GREAT! I understand better know. I thank you, geran, and Afro for your responses!
Yes, that was a great put-down of that clown, David Appell by Mr. Huffman. Does Mr. Huffman hold a PhD? (just curious, not that it matters one bit). It is amazing that Appell holds a PhD in Physics but knows so little of thermodynamics and atmospheric physics.
Again, I can’t thank enough Joe Postma for running this blog. You guys are GREAT !!!
CO2 compared to other atmospheric gases is 1 per 2500
The question to ask is, “How is it that one molecule, among 2500 other molecules, can vibrate intensely enough to cause those other 2600 molecules to vibrate appreciably more ?” OR “How is it that the emissions of one molecule, among 2500 other molecules, can add anything (ANYTHING) to the energy of other molecules emitting HIGHER ENERGY ?
Either way you look at it, CO2 cannot do what is claimed by climate alarmists.
In other words, that’s one magic molecule (even multiplied times its respective proportion of all the molecules of the atmosphere) that can dominate and control the entire fluid dynamics of Earth’s entire atmospheric mass !
The intense, myopic, manic focus on CO2 radiation behavior is the same as blotting out all other consciousness of atmospheric processes.
Robert, I will use your question, near verbatim, if that’s OK?
Yeah, that’s okay, and I predict that the response you get will involve how many carbon dioxide molecules TOTAL are in Earth’s atmosphere, and how you have to look at all those CO2 molecules collectively to realize the TOTAL effect of CO2.
… at which point, it might be intelligent to point out, “Yeah, now multiply that huge number of CO2 molecules by 2500 to get the TOTAL MOLECULES in the mass of Earth’s atmosphere that the 1/2500 proportion of molecules of this mass (CO2) supposedly controls.
See, when you focus on how many total CO2 molecules there are, you cannot ignore the fact that you have to realize how many total OTHER molecules there are too. The ratio of 1/2500 does NOT change, just because you can focus on total number of molecules. That ratio has to be considered within this totality too.
There is a simple sanity check for Magic Gais Disease.
Conduct this survey.
“A cold fluid mass is conduction cooling a warmer solid mass.
The cold fluid is
(A) cooling
(B) warming
the mass it is conduction cooling.
To a Magic Gasser,
the obvious answer
is (B)
There should be a “C” choice too:
(C) depends on what the consensus says that year
How many things are wrong with the bogus GHE?
Too many to count?
That could be why I tend to overuse the word “hilarious”.
The “lukewarmers” are always good for a chuckle.
Hilarious!
How many things are wrong?
Well, CO2 is a component of Earth’s atmosphere. That part is right.
After that … mathemagic, climastrology, thermoretardism, ecopolitics, and idioeconomics.
“thermoretardism”
That’s a good term, new to me. “Thermoretard” is much more descriptive than “Lukewarmer”.
Thanks.
I’m getting on a bit in years.
But i still enjoy the nightlife, i was always out under the stars over the years lamping rabbit’s salmon and sea trout, or fishing off the coast or in a river, i mean waste deep.
Any way this is the time of year the itch starts for sea trout in the bottom reaches of the local streams.
So last night perfect, had been torrential rain for several hours then cleared up, but pitch dark.
So i’m off out at 3.30 am, you can see without a torch within an hour, and the weirdest thing was the swirling steam in the headlights coming off the tarmac it was thick, but un-mistake-ably originating from the road surface.
I do not recall ever seeing that before in the dark at night, the heat stored in the tarmac must have been incredible as thats the coolest part of day.
Hi Joseph.
You should write a paper on how the planet’s rotation affects the energy the planet can absorb. I’ve been trying to explain to the alarmists that CO2 cannot increase the planet’s temp because the surface never completely absorbs what the sun impinges because that surface rotates away before it can, which then of course cools. So a paper that measures what the different absorbtions would be at different rates would be great to show this.
This post is to you Joe.
Doesn’t matter whether you let it throughbmoderation or delete to me.
I thought if you were inclined you may with to respond to someone bad mouthing you.
Physics Teacher
June 1, 2018 at 1:10 am | #
Every comment above implying that radiation to Earth’s surface determines its temperature is wrong. So too is the first paper (by J.Postma) published on this PSI site years ago and never retracted, despite their “Peer Review in Open Media” policy, because Postma also gets his calculations wrong and makes hand-waving assertions that, because the Sun’s radiation can warm some areas to high temperatures then, he thinks, it can explain the mean surface temperature. But it comes nowhere near doing do. Even climatologists know that the Solar radiation can only maintain a sub-zero temperature at the so-called radiating altitude. So how could it maintain a higher temperature at the surface when Stefan Boltzmann calculations imply a maximum of 233K for the mean of 168W/m^2 of solar radiation? What really happens was in the paper PSI rejected in 2013 because Postma said that paper was wrong. Well he would, wouldn’t he, seeing that it proved his paper wrong.
https://principia-scientific.org/the-greenhouse-gas-effect-is-a-scientific-impossibility/
Reply
Oh it’s just some disgusting sophist troll missing the point on purpose.
Joseph says it well, in about a dozen words.
What is funny is the “heat creep” is still clinging to his failed “science”, from over 5 years ago. He believes the Earth only receives 168 Watts/m^2! That’s why, in his head, the planet has an average temperature of -40 ºC (-40 ºF).
You just can’t help stupid.
Richard says: “I’ve been trying to explain to the alarmists that CO2 cannot increase the planet’s temp because the surface never completely absorbs what the sun impinges because that surface rotates away before it can, which then of course cools.”
Richard your conclusion that CO2 cannot increase Earth’s temperature is correct. But rotation doesn’t have as much “cooling” effect as you might envision. The “spherical cap” that is directly exposed to the Sun captures over 70% of solar irradiation. Even allowing for albedo, that averages much more than 67 ºC (153 ºF). It takes about 6 hours for the spherical cap to rotate away. So, there is plenty of time for the Sun to overheat the surface. That’s when the planet’s cooling mechanisms come into play. Evaporation is the first line of defense, quickly followed by convection.
“Oh it’s just some disgusting sophist troll missing the point on purpose.”
I wouldn’t give him that much credit, actually. If he were doing it on purpose, then he would KNOW what he was doing. I really don’t think he knows what he’s doing — he actually believes what he is saying is rational. That’s just sad.
I’d like to see some actual calculations about that. What gets absorbed will depend on what the sun is shining on. Land vs ocean, vs both, vs snow covered poles, at different rotation rates.
Hi Richard,
I’m not sure what calculations you are desiring. I used the S/B equation, with a flux of 750 Watts/m^2.
Consider a perfect blackbody sphere, heated by the Sun. At equilibrium, its temperature would be calculated from the S/B equation. If the sphere then started to rotate, as does the Earth, its temperature would not change.
I have a bad habit of commenting too succinctly. Certainly, if you have questions please ask.
I would think with enough solar panels around the world, we could used their data to see specifically what energy the sun provides for each hour of the day, then deturmine how quickly it cools down. Or has that already been done?
My point with the AGW alarmists is that no part of the surface abosrbs or reflects 100% of what it would were the planet not rotating. Rotate faster and how warm the day gets would be lower. Rotate slower and it would get more, making in most places impossible for life. It would also drop a lot further during the longer night.
This would be like moving your hand over a flame, or rotating a pig over a fire. Leave the pig exposed to the flame for too long and you burn that surface.
Hence, my position is that the true thermostat of the planet is its rate of rotation. It’s rotating just right.
Sunset Tommy banned me years ago when PSI first started, because I told him no cold nitrogen bath is a heater, ever, so I don’t go over there; but someone could go over and ask the “physics teacher” if he’s ever heard of the ELEMENTARY SCHOOL experiment where a kid puts a thermometer in a mayo jar, and pulls the air out, to show science fairs what our atmosphere does for our planet.
Tell him a little 12 year old kid puts a thermometer in a mayo jar and has contrived to poke a hole in the lid: a little smaller than a short length of aquarium air hose.
The hose is then pushed into that hole such that the relative differences in size between hole and hose – create seal sufficient to perform the experiment.
The little 12 year old waits till people come by and she then asks them to watch the thermometer.
she proceeds to put the free end of the hose to her lips and she vacuums air out of the jar. When the hose is beginning to collapse the little girl folds the hose over and holds it.
The question is – what does the thermometer do?
Does it stay the same?
Does it rise because there’s no air to conduction cool it?
Does it lower, because the sky is a heater, and cold nitrogen baths warm the things they cool?
Smooth up with him so he won’t slink off and tell him that you REALLY respect his climityness and as a matter of fact, someone had asked a signtsie question on another website… tell him…you seem like you could answer this for me,
and then just copy-paste it over,DuDe, LoL… Tell him, – say – “I was thinking about the possible answers, but then I wasn’t sure if a cold bath is a heater, or if no cold bath, is a cooler….”
LoL… I guarantee you
hilarity is gonna ensue.
Richard–Yes, if one side stays longer in the Sun, it will get hotter. But, the other side is getting colder. So, the net effect (average temperature) is not changed. It’s a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” scenario.
The best way I’ve found to counter Warmists is with just the basic physics. CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source, so it cannot raise the temperature of a system. It can NOT “trap heat”. It can absorb and emit infrared, but so can ALL matter. A harmless bowl of fruit absorbs and emits IR. The 15 µ photon emitted by CO2 has less energy than the peak wavelength photon from an ice cube! No one, but a pseudoscience sophist, would consider fruit or ice as a warming agent.
The IPCC AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense is a hoax.
The net effect of a slower rotating earth is no one would be here to argue the details. I dont care about net effects (the flat earth analogy), I care about the details.
The alarmists claim that CO2 reduces the rate of heat loss (like a space blanket, a completely false analogy), that a slower rate of temperature drop actually increases temperature… So when you apply the breaks of your car slower your speed actually increases…
This is the physics of the universe they live in: Temperature falling slower is actually temperature increase. IR energy is additive to temperature. Colder objects warm warmer objects. CO2 acts like a blanket.
Thus for me, this is the argument I use all the time on them. AGW violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Coupled with my demand they show us anything abnormal happening in the climate today, not over 100 years, but over the last 10% of earth history (to them 450 million years ago was a long long time, it’s not, it’s the last 10% of earth history, that’s recent).
Exactly, Richard. And, I especially like your phrase “So when you apply the breaks of your car slower your speed actually increases”.
I may have to “borrow” that occasionally….
Yes that is good. And the “slower rate of temperature drop is an increase” above from where it dropped from…lol.
The argument I get from the alarmists is this:
Day time temp is 30C, night goes to 10C. Next day high is 30C again, but only drops to 15C the next night. That means the temp went up. That is, less loss of temp is warming, an increase in temps!
It’s a classic glass half empty/half full argument. A glass is half full only if it has been FILLED half way. If the glass is half empty, it means the glass was EMPTIED of water to half way. The former requires new water, the latter is a loss of water already there. If the glass is empties to 3/4 full, the alarmist postion is that is new water (new heat).
Of course it’s not new water. Nor is nightime higher temp new energy. It’s less of a loss of energy that was previously present.
So let’s apply this logic to the current warming trend. It’s warmer today not because of any new energy, as that is impossible to happen from the sun. But is rather, less loss of temps. Long deep cold winters, thousands of years of ice ages, are the abornal state when one looks at the entire last 10% of earth history. Warming now is returning to the natural state of the planet.
Speaking of PSI (assumed to mean “Principia Scientific International”), I was reading some of the interesting commentary by James McGinn over there, and when I commented on one of his comments in disbelief, he called me names and accused me of calling him names, when I did not even come close to that.
Anyhow, this person believes that the whole idea of water vapor in the atmosphere is a physical impossibility, because he thinks that water has to be at boiling point in order to be vapor, and so he slams all meteorologists. Am I missing an important alternative breakthrough in knowledge, or was I justified in expressing great disbelief in this far out notion?
Here’s the internet address of the article and discussion where James saw fit to name call me.
https://principia-scientific.org/the-greenhouse-gas-effect-is-a-scientific-impossibility/
Robert,
1) You have a lot of patience.
2) You should ask James how many tornadoes he has “solved”.
Here is the essence of James’ reasoning:
“Meteorology’s theory of storms depends on the pseudo-scientific supposition that H2O magically turns gaseous at temperatures well below the boiling temperature of H2O. This is impossible.”
As I said over at PSI (which got me called several ugly names): “Just WOW.”
And I say it again, “Just WOW”.
The point is that there is confusion within confusion that makes the whole climate-change issue even more ridiculously confused than many people might realize.
Yes and note they make that argument with -18C input. All contradictions everywhere.
McGinn is a class A psychopath. Used to spam here….still does in fact you just don’t see it.
(^_^)
Ellen Eltor writes,
“Sunset Tommy banned me years ago when PSI first started, because I told him no cold nitrogen bath is a heater, ever, so I don’t go over there; but someone could go over and ask the “physics teacher” if he’s ever heard of the ELEMENTARY SCHOOL experiment where a kid puts a thermometer in a mayo jar, and pulls the air out, to show science fairs what our atmosphere does for our planet….”
You made an unverified claim, not only that I don’t recall debating with you at that place anyway.
RK,
Send James this (if you are so inclined) and tell him to stop with his hysterics. Based on JP’s assessment it may be a total waste of time (a time sink) but it is up to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point#/media/File:Phase-diag2.svg
I don’t know him at all, but he clearly is an ignoramus. And that is not name calling it is a simple assessment of the facts in hand. I have this same trouble with people frequently because they lack even the most basic of scientific/engineering knowledge. The diagram if he has a modicum of math/science should make it painfully obvious that he is wrong. This is a lab producible piece of knowledge (it can be duplicated aka real science ) and environmentally tested and used every day by engineers and scientists the world over. In fact there are videos of the triple point of various materials phasing between different states around the “triple point” on youtube. Perhaps we will have to accuse them all of witchcraft?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=triple+point+of+water+demonstration
Matt,
I like this diagram too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram#/media/File:Phase_diagram_of_water.svg
I don’t seriously think that I can influence James’ stance, but it’s always interesting to see how people maintain their points of view and how they structure the defense for doing so. It fascinates me.
Yep. Peoples desire to live in the facade that has been constructed around them by the media, the left , the educational system and all the rest of the cons never ceases to amaze me. The desire to believe in Unicorns outweighs the critical production of evidence and critical thinking. And thus the Leprechaun, the Unicorn and the pot of Gold are undoubtedly out there just waiting for you to become their discoverer.
The endless desire to romanticize science and put emotional notions into it is something we will have to undo as a culture nationally and globally, if we are to overcome these types of shenanigans. The leftists /progressives know how to use psychology to pander to peoples baser emotions and thus the romanticized garbage that is injected into science today is really just a lever to bend the cultural arc to their own hateful genocidal ways. This is the SOP for every scumbag politician on the planet.
Hows the quote go…~”in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”?
Robert, why don’t ask silly James where those rain puddles on the sidewalk and roads go.
Well said Matt!
Good one sunsettommy.
My email alerted me that James has made additional comments to me over at PSI, but I don’t plan to go back over there to even see what they are, because I don’t want to spend any more time dissecting his words.
Maybe I should thank him, though, because by engaging with his seeming lacking way of thinking, I actually firmed up my understanding of water’s phases.
As for where he thinks water puddles on sidewalks go, I imagine he thinks self-organizing duos or trios of water molecules somehow get together to form nano-droplets that microscopic, wee elfin folk load onto their microscopic magic carpets to whisk away invisibly into the sky. There microscopic unicorns head-but them into bigger nano-droplets that then form clouds, which the great wizard turns into thunderstorms or, better yet, tornadoes.
Yet, he questions the “greenhouse effect” — not exactly a point in our favor, unfortunately.
Thanks Joe.
RK,
Can we call that the nano-carpet elven-unicorn water wizard tornado transport cycle? NCEUWWTT? pronounced [in-ca-hoots]?
In honor of the rest of the Gore-con-artists gaming the system of course. That way they sound like an invading alien race or something. LOL
If further discussion is had with him perhaps we should inquire to the production of hailstones the size of grapefruits like here in NorTex (North Texas). Maybe it was a teleportation scheme by the Elves. Although, I think based on your NCEUWWTT hypothesis we can also just add in some extra unicorns to achieve grapefruit size chunks of ice falling from the sky.
I like your tweaking of my approach, Matt. Now we need to draw some convincing charts and graphs to illustrate this sure-to-be-popular paradigm, with catchy acronym, newly embraced by all meteorologists of the world.
Well now over at WUWT, there’s this discussion:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/does-global-warming-increase-total-atmospheric-water-vapor-tpw/
It’s about water vapor, and one of my comments there challenges the idea of “slowed cooling”, which, of course, gets some disagreement. Someone tries to say that it’s like a resistor controlling the amount of current passing through a circuit or that it’s like the p value in insulation being increased. But I’m not buying it.
Damn, I wish I could get this “slowed cooling” idea beaten down once and for all with the right words.
Robert, first, ask them “what is being cooled?” .. isn’t the object being cooled the Earth’s surface? .. Then explain how water vapor (or any gas) can “slow” the cooling process of the surface.
Undoubtedly they will be forced to introduce the entire “back radiation” paradigm. To which you can simply ask them how the -18°C back radiation can “heat” the surface, and wouldn’t a -18°C back radiation actually accelerate cooling?
Holy crap Joseph, you aren’t just a kidding either. A couple of years ago I had an email conversation with him. In very short order he went flying off the rails big time and he basically turned into a stalker. McGinn is one scary individual. He has several screws loose.
Nobody listens to you whiney cowards. Certainty is for fools and ideologues. You are both
squid,
It’s not just cooling that seems to be the focus, but the TIME required for cooling. How does slowed cooling add any heat? As I asked over at WUWT, “slow with respect to whose schedule”? … how long is too long? … doesn’t cooling EVENTUALLY happen anyway, and why does a slower rate of cooling ultimately have anything to do with the amount of heat that is ever there? — again, EVENTUALLY the cooling happens, right?”
Are we talking about a minute late? … and hour late? … a day late? … a month?, year?, decade?
How does one quantify a cooling rate that is TOO slow? Why does the RATE matter, if it happens anyway?
Okay, say a location on Earth used to cool off to a certain level by 6PM but now it does not cool off to this level until 7PM, What difference does that make? It DID cool, just an hour later. Why does that matter? It’s NOT any hotter — it’s just the same hotness for a little longer than before. Again, who determines a standard acceptable temperature at any certain location? What’s the standard rate of cooling that SHOULD exist at my longitude and latitude, for example? Who decided this? Why? Where are the tables to show this for all locations of the world?
Hi Jim! (claudiusdenk@gmail.com)
I’ll let this one through since it is so hilarious and exposes you as the disgusting retard you are.
If certainty is for fools, then WTF are you even doing here, talking about, and trying to prove, since by your own definition to take you with any certainty would be foolish!?
My good God, you are a disgusting goblin idiot. Please be obliged to live the rest of your pathetic life with the beliefs you currently have. Please do not change 🙂
Oh, I see now, he sneaked in that little comment probably at the same time I posted mine. And it reads: Nobody listens to you whiney cowards. Certainty is for fools and ideologues. You are both.
Only a “whiney coward” would insert such a brief fleeting commentary and nothing more, as if running, without contributing anything bold, strong and manly to discuss like a champion.
Robert: “Damn, I wish I could get this “slowed cooling” idea beaten down once and for all with the right words.”
Robert. the “slowed cooling” is just another example that they know their pseudoscience is a FAIL. They’re not only moving the goal posts, they’re trying to change the game.
With the “slowed cooling” nonsense, they are admitting the atmosphere can NOT warm the surface. So, they are trying to claim “slowing the cooling” is the same as warming.
I’ve seen them try the “resistor” analogy before. They don’t realize that a resistor converts electrical energy to heat energy. It REMOVES energy from the circuit, just as CO2 removes energy from the planet. They get so tangled up in their bogus analogies, it’s fun to watch.
This “slowing cooling is the same as warming” argument is, always has been, and always will be, total nonsense.
What the idiots are doing is confusing ‘insolation’ with ‘insulation’. These are two entirely different scientific processes.
Has anyone here ever put hot coffee into a vacuum flask in order to ‘slow the cooling’? Yes, of course you have.
Has that coffee ever got hotter than it was when it was poured into the flask? No, of course it hasn’t!
If they can’t get their heads around that, just tell them to sleep outside on a cold night. Take their body temperature (I strongly suggest anally to get the most hilarious results) at the start and the end of the night. They are allowed to use sleeping bags (one or more) to ‘slow the cooling’ down but their body temperature will ALWAYS be colder by daybreak…
Because deep down they know they have lost the ‘backradiation’ argument, they now try to introduce the “Ah, what we meant was CO2 is really an insulator” argument.
Neither argument has any merit in the real world. They are just pi$$ing in the wind…
The green house gases are the SOLE class gases even LISTED
*reducing surface energy density*
and do not EVER contribute to warming.
Every molecule of CO2 thrown up pings off and redirects MUCH more infrared from the sun, than from the earth; in fact SHADING and contributing to the green house gases’ well known 20%-plus, refracted or thermalized sunlight.
There is NO such THING,
as placing insulation,
between a fire and rock,
and that making the rock’s thermal sensors
detect and depict more light leaving,
every time your refractive insulation,
allows less light to arrive at those sensors,
and that is what those people are telling you is happening.
It is a direct violation of conservation of energy.
Not maybe, not Thursday, not when the Chairman decides to share hooker porn with Trump.
NOT EVER has ANY entity come between a FIRE and FIRELIGHT SENSOR
and by REDUCING total light to that sensor,
made that sensor depict MORE light arriving at the sensor.
Those mathematics and physics fraud barking bastards will scream like someone’s run off with a CHILD.
But the MOMENT you CONFESS YOU THINK – YEA, IT’S POSSIBLE for someone to put
LIGHT BLOCKING MOLECULES between a SENSOR and LIGHT
and make that SENSOR show MORE light arriving
everytime more light blocking molecules let LESS light arrive,
YOU have BECOME THEM.
This is NOT a “matter of semantics.” This is not some kind of CONDITIONAL statement.
It is a DIRECT and FLAGRANT VIOLATION of CONSERVATION of ENERGY
to believe that it’s possible to suspend a beer in a bath,
then put in LIGHT blocking insulation,
and have SENSORS on that beer
show MORE light arriving
each time LESS arrives.
They can not STAND it. They jump and squeal and immediately all the ones with brains to know they’re con men, s.t.f.U.
and allllll the low i.q. types start trying to snipe.
Pretty soon, they start realizing.. wait a second, this guy’s not giving up let me think of the BEST ANSWER to this,
and they realize,
there is none.
There is NO answer to that.
What
Ever.
So – you don’t have to CAVE to the fake physics, stand your ground, and tell them SHOW YOU – I tend to always phrase it
“that OTHER time in ALLLLLLLLLLLL THERMODYNAMICS, when LESS light reaching a SENSOR made it depict MORE reach it. EVERY time less reached it. SHOW me THAT or YOU’RE the FAKE I TOLD all these people you WERE when I SHOWED UP.”
You talk about chilling the place out like somebody dipped hell in liquid nitrogen.
Just don’t take their bullshit, explain to them how a fuglin cold bath,
with cold light blocking refrigerants mixed in it, acts.
They block 20% and more of all sunlight to the planet. That’s the first thing the
COOLING green house gases do.
BEFORE the contact-derived conduction cooling starts.
So you just don’t have to put up with it. Put it like this – before you go over there wherever knucklehead is, sit down yourself and figure out the answer to what I told ya – that he might come up with.
Just go around and around him and keep repeating,
“SHOW ME and THESE PEOPLE
a SINGLE INSTANCE in ALL THERMODYNAMICS
when LIGHT REFRACTING PARTICLES
MIXED into a BATH
making LESS light reach a ROCK
caused sensors to detect and depict
MORE light
reaching that ROCK.
Every time it makes,
LESS light REACH the ROCK.
I try to finish up with
“HicK.”
Here’s the link,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg
Does anyone here see ANY class gases reducing energy to the surface listed, except that little slot for oxygen?
There’s a little lost to nitrogen, and a little lost to ozone but not much at all. So little they don’t even list them on charts.
You are all being buffaloed by people just telling you “Aw, git outta here that ain’t real.”
You’re getting bluffed. Because they’re LYING. There’s no such THING as putting insulation between a rock and fire, so the rock gets HOTTER by your removal of LIGHT.
Again: this is not negotiable. It is not foldable, bendable, it is IMMOVABLE.
It is FUNDAMENTALS in CONSERVATION of ENERGY.
The definition of these refrigerant gases’ being insulation: is ALSO: NOT NEGOTIABLE. They INSULATE against a FULL FIFTH of WARMING SUNLIGHT
reducing surface energy density – definitionally that is COOLING.
These gases after all this refraction and a small amount of thermalization,
still average as cool, as the overall COLD NITROGEN BATH so EVERY time they touch
the surface or some associated surface feature,
their SECOND cooling function is invoked: CONDUCTION.
The MOMENT you BLINK about this and are just afraid to bring it up, – you’re done.
Because – YOU’RE RIGHT about – them being wrong,
you just don’t realize, how BADLY – how BLATANTLY and WILLFULLY they’re BEING wrong.
Good point, Allen. As your link indicates, CO2 results in more cooling than warming.
To expand further, the 2 µ photon (near infrared) absorbed by CO2 has energy of 0.62 eV. While the “planet-heating” 14.7 µ photon (far infrared) has energy of only 0.084 eV.
The two photons correspond to Wien’s Law peak wavelength temperatures of 2 µ > 1450K, and 14.7 µ > 197 K.
I guess the pseudoscience sophists believe 197 K is hotter than 1450 K.
(Hilarious.)
I disagree. CO2 provides absolutely no “warming” as “warming” requires additional energy, and since CO2 is not a source of energy, it can provide absolutely no warming whatsoever.
CO2 assists cooling because it is such a good absorber/emitter .. CO2 transfers energy well, that’s what makes it a good coolant.
The AGW morons out there can’t seem to wrap their tiny brains around these concepts and are so easily fooled by the con-artists like Al Gore and the rest. They don’t understand what it is that makes an insulator and what is a good conductor, and that the two are antithetical to one another, like matter and antimatter. A good conductor cannot make a good insulator, and vice-versa.
NO gas can “result in warming” … period
Oh, but Geran, the rest of your comment was very well done. Nice work!
Robert,
My living room is currently 74°F .. if I close my windows at night to “slow the cooling”, does my living room ever exceed 74°F ?? … Let us expand that even further. Suppose my furnace is pumping 74°F air (at some huge volume) into my living room. It is 34°F outside. If I close my windows to “slow the cooling” of my living room, does the temperature of my living room ever reach a temperature higher than 74°F ?? .. obviously the answer is an emphatic NO
ie: “slowed cooling” does not equal “increased temperature” .. no matter how you slice it.
Robert,
I will go even further. These idiots are also claiming that my furnace, pumping out -18°C is warming my house to 74°F (23°C). How’s that for stupid? … ask them how much -18°C it takes to increase tomorrow’s high temperature to 92°F (33°C) … how much -18°C will it take to get the temperature that high?
As Joseph has aptly demonstrated several times .. heat does not pile! .. you cannot add -18°C + -18°C = 33°C, no matter how many times you add -18°C, you can never, ever reach 33°C .. not ever! .. no matter how much “insulation” you have, no matter how much CO2 you have .. you cannot ever get to 33°C … I don’t care how much you “slow the cooling”, you still cannot ever get to 33°C .. NEVER!
Consider if you could … our universe could not exist!
Okay, so let’s seriously entertain the “slowed cooling” version of the “radiative greenhouse theory”:
By “slowed cooling”, I’m assuming that Earth’s day side temperature cools by a certain hour, and Earth’s night side temperature cools by a certain hour.
Add more CO2, and the premise is that Earth’s day side would still cool, but it would cool, say X minutes later. Eventually, with enough CO2 added, I’m supposing that the premise would also be that Earth’s night side would take longer to cool too, say Y minutes later than usual.
This means that more warmth is being retained for a longer period on the day side, and that more warmth is being retained for a longer period on the night side. Taken to the limit, this would mean that more and more CO2 added to the atmosphere would “slow cooling” to such an extent that, in effect, more total warmth has been added. But there’s only a certain amount of energy entering the system, and so how can this go on to where cooling never really happens, and the heat is “trapped”?
Something must be wrong with the idea of “slowed cooling”, since it leads to an absurd result.
No.
It goes the morning [sunrise] starts warmer, so the day time high is higher.
And ofcourse a higher daytime peak means a warmer sunset.
And round and around you go.
.
This is how i understand it.
The darkside has the descending cooling co2, by sunrise its all on the floor feeding the biosphere.
As the Earths surface’s warm, so does the Atmosphere in contact with them carrying the co2 away, by mid-day only downward and other forcing are keeping a very thin ppm of co2 at the surface,
Once the co2 reaches a cold enough temperature -30c [ i think]. to become active emitting the energy it has absorbed to get to that height now in 2 ways friction and radiation, whilst at the same time absorbing energy by friction and LWIR, its still warms slightly and rises further up to -100c [i think].
As the upward LWIR weakens after mid-day the co2 descends as it cools, and by by sunrise its all on the floor again.
Now figure in the terminator line and the co2 molecules as a rising flock of birds behind it, and snowflakes descending in front of it.
I’m a simple man Robert,
I thought that CO2 was “well-mixed” within the rest of Earth’s atmospheric gases, and so the separation that I am seeing described by Gary A. seems out of tune, with respect to this assumption.
Cooler air is near the ground, yes, and its PROPORTION of CO2 is “feeding the biosphere”, but the CO2 is not separated out from the rest of the air components.
Again, I’m looking for a discussion about the actual TIME consideration. “Slow” relates to TIME. Where is this time clock used to measure the “slowed cooling”? When does it start? When does it pause to measure how slow slow is? And what is too slow? And what is the correct time span to cool? When we say “slow”, we have to talk about time, and I want to see time talked about exactly in the manner in which it applies to this conception of “slow” in “slowed cooling”.
“Slowed cooling” really seems pretty abstract. What the heck EXACTLY does this mean, and how does this translate into “warmer than would otherwise be”?
Well it isn’t well mixed, ive seen the data from measuring stations, seen the graphs etc, it is not contentious, it couldnt be any clearer, its nearly all in the first few meters of atmosphere at dawn/sun rise, then a curve up over 12 hours, then a steep curve back down over the next 12…
day after day after day, the graphs just look like 24 hour waves with the bulk of co2 at ground back to the bulk at ground level, i would like to link it,
It was a Swedish/Dutch/Finnish Who was posting his work, he worked monitoring co2 levels.
Sorry Joe bad eyesight,…..
This reply to replace the one,.
Well it isn’t well mixed, ive seen the data from measuring stations, seen the graphs etc, it is not contentious, it couldnt be any clearer, its nearly all in the first few meters of atmosphere at dawn/sun rise, then a curve up over 12 hours, then a steep curve back down over the next 12…
Day after day after day, the graphs just look like 24 hour waves with the bulk of co2 at ground at ground level at sunrise.i would like to link it,
It was a Swedish/Dutch/Finnish guy Who was posting his work, he worked monitoring co2 levels.
All he was doing was graphing measurement.
See Robert about 2 hours after daybreak the ppm at the surface is thin, absorbed by the plants that is replenished by wind blown co2 for a little while.
And in the background around your feet you have the biosphere exhaling the same amount of co2 over 24 hours as it absorb from the bulk co2 when it is at ground level.
Ppm at mid-day at ground level are pretty thin and remain so.
Co2 is 60% heavier than dry air.
I will try and find the Guy again, theres hardly anything in searches about surface volumes of co2, they use measurement from 4000 meters up a mountain,
At the height they measure i suppose it will be well mixed, but both at the top and bottom of the gas column it isn’t.
A. it ascends higher than the other gases.lighter molecules when bathed in LWIR
B It sinks to the bottom of the lighter molecules when not.
There is a DIRECT, POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP of:
MORE GHGs = LESS WARMING FIRELIGHT warming The Earth.
===============
25,000 ppm water, + 400ish ppm CO2 = 22% less light.
1% LESS LIGHT IN, = 1% LESS LIGHT OUT.
=================
NO NEGOTIATIONS
================
ANY other claim is a direct, crass, IN your FACE violation
of Conservation of Energy.
“I suggest you don’t go there.”
“We ban for inane comments here.”
“There is a limit to how much we’ll tolerate here.”
Remember some months back, I was telling you how this is what’s called
“Inversion” fraud?
The VERY FIRST INVERSION in this SCAM
is STARING you RIGHT in the face.
You’re dealing with what’s among the VERY first inversions. RIGHT after they calculate the temperature wrong, refusing to account for the atmosphere’s 33 degrees compression warming,
SOMETHING HAS to BE INVERTED
to ACCOUNT for the ERROR.
It turns into “Green House Gases HEAT the planet.”
Allegedly from “Green House Gases SLOW COOLING of the planet.”
There can be no “slowed cooling”
when every time you ADD insulation, you INCREASE cooling.
Not partially. Math is PERFECTLY clear.
ALL QUANTITIES relate PERFECTLY.
1% less light, mandates 1% lower temperature.
1% less light arriving mandates 1% less light leaving.
=====================
It’s inarguable that 25,000 ppm water + 400 ppm CO2 = 20% less firelight warming the planet.
That being the case, 12,500, H2O + 200 CO2 mandates 10% less firelight warming the planet.
Less light in = less light out, a.c.c.o.r.d.i.n.g. to *Conservation of Energy.*
The math DESCRIBING this relationship states *CLEARLY:
1% less light in = 1% less light out.
10% less light in = 10% less light out
15% less light = 15% less light out,
just like TODAY when 20% less light IN
means 20% less light OUT.
Just like TOMORROW when due to more green house gases,
21% less light IN will mean 21% less light OUT.
There’s no FUDGING that through INVENTION
of IMAGINARY, NON_EXISTENT_QUANTITIES
Conservation of Energy STATES EXPLICITLY,
DO_NOT_EXIST.
People have been *conditioned to not dare bring it up, Robert.
Magic gas barking frauds, Greasy Tony ‘Magic Gas’ Watts come to mind,
* * *INVENTED BANNING SCIENTIFIC COMMENT* * *
SPECIFICALLY because THEY CAN’T DEFEND,
these OBVIOUS violations of physical hence mathematical law.
Gary A.,
Well, it makes sense that that heavier CO2 would tend to “pool” lower down, under the force of gravity. But wouldn’t a similar claim apply to O2 as well, since O2 is heavier than nitrogen?
It’s an interesting consideration that I have not thought about before, and now you’ve got me thinking about it.
The atmosphere is not strictly stratified. Is it ? I mean, there’s not a layer of nitrogen on top of a layer of oxygen, on top of a layer of CO2, and somehow water and other gases figure into the strata?
I always thought of it all mixed up and acting in unison, with each component having its effect where it could occur. Now I’m wondering whether this mixed idea is an oversimplification of a more complex phenomenon that involves gravity’s influence on gases of different weights, and convection or wind sweeping them all together, and there’s some dynamic between gravity and convection/wind that complicates the whole issue.
Is there data anywhere that shows the gas profile of Earth’s atmosphere at different altitudes?
Is CO2 ppm different at, say, 1 meter, than it is, say, at 1000 meters? Is oxygen concentration greater at 20 meters than it is at 500 meters? Is nitrogen concentration greater higher up than it is lower down? How does wind figure in? How does convection figure in? Crap! You see what you’ve done to my thinking. (^_^)
When you start breaking things down into separate components, it gets messy. Is there an overriding approach that overshadows this dissection of the whole? Allen E. seems to be doing this, but I’m not quite following him, because I’m missing some crucial assumption that he has probably explained but I somehow did not get.
Squid, I was surprised that you disagreed with “CO2 results in more cooling than warming”.
But, each to his/her own, as they say.
Joe,
Don’t let this posting interrupt your valuable time if I’m completely wrong, but this is where my thinking has got me…
In it’s gaseous state, CO2 is a LWIR-active molecule because it has the potential to provide a changing dipole moment, something common to asymmetric diatomic molecules, and all triatomic and higher polyatomic molecules. The energy packet which is provided by the photon will be exactly that which excites the molecule from the ground state (with vibrational quantum number v=0) to the first excited state (with vibrational quantum number v=1). In other cases, the energy packet which is provided by the photon will be exactly that which excites the molecule from the ground state to the second excited state with vibrational quantum number v=2 (these are known as overtone bands). The LWIR wavelength photons that are absorbed by the molecule are the same as those that are re-emitted.
My understanding is that: the temperature of a collection of molecules in their gaseous state is actually a measure of their kinetic energy, where this kinetic energy is represented by the average of each individual molecule’s translational energy (straight-line motion) and rotational energy (atoms within the molecule rotating about an axis) when factored by that specific molecule’s specific heat capacity (the energy required to increase a known mass of that molecule by a degree of temperature scale). Both translational energy values and rotational energy values are not discrete values, but are analogue (just like velocity). However, Vibrational energy, as held by LWIR-active molecules, have discrete (quantised) values. Vibrational energy does not directly impact the temperature of a molecule: By this I mean that, not unlike latent heat (which changes the phase of a molecule rather than it’s temperature), Vibrational energy changes the excitement state level of a molecule, rather than it’s temperature.
If all the above is true, then this suggests to me that;
1. When cold LWIR-active molecule (one that does not have sufficient energy to increase it’s excited state from it’s current state) receives a photon of the exact value that is required change the dipole moment, then it will accept the photon and it’s vibrational energy will increase by that amount delivered by the photon, but it’s translational energy and rotational energy will not change – so it’s temperature will not change. Conversely, when a LWIR-active molecule emits a photon, it’s vibrational energy will be reduced by that exact amount conveyed by that photon, but it’s translational energy and rotational energy will not change, so it’s temperature will not change.
2. When a warm LWIR-active molecule contains sufficient translational energy and rotational energy i.e. greater than required to change a quantum dipole state, then that discrete amount of energy required to change that dipole state is taken (transformed) from the molecule’s ‘excess’ translational energy and/or rotational energy. Although the molecule’s vibrational energy has increased, the molecule’s translational energy and/or rotational energy has reduced – and so that individual molecule becomes “colder” – but not when it emits a photon but when it transforms a quantum amount of ‘excess’ kinetic energy to raise it’s state excitement level. That said, this quantum amount of vibrational energy is permanently lost from the molecule when it spontaneously produces a photon of that exact quantum energy value. And depending upon the molecule’s current kinetic energy, some of that excess kinetic may again be taken and transformed into vibrational energy – and thus the cycle continues until the molecule has become so ‘cold’ that it no longer has any excess kinetic energy which can be converted into vibrational energy.
This cycle of ‘LWIR-emitted atmospheric cooling’ will be interrupted only by either (a) collision with a molecule with more kinetic energy that the LWIR-active molecule in question. In this case, some of the kinetic energy (I’m guessing the amount is determined by the collision angle) will be transferred from the high-energy molecule to our LWIR-active molecule. And the new amount kinetic energy in our LWIR-active molecule may again allow a change in the dipole moment and eventually another photon emission cycle may proceed. Note: If the energy transferred to our LWIR-active molecule is sufficiently great, the kinetic energy is converted into chemical energy, and a covalent bond in our LWIR-active molecule is permanently broken. Alternatively, (b) collision with another molecule with less energy than our LWIR-active molecule. In this case, our (warmer) LWIR-active molecule will lose some of it’s energy to the other (colder) molecule.
So, not only is our friendly CO2 molecule acting as a ‘notch filter’ to prevent some photons of specific LWIR wavelengths that have been emitted from our Sun, from reaching the Earth’s surface (which can only have a cooling effect for the surface of the Earth), our friendly CO2 molecule can ‘inherit’ (by conduction) the kinetic energy from warmer molecules and then, cyclically, convert this inherited kinetic energy into vibrational energy and then wantonly discard it each time our friendly LWIR-active CO2 molecule spontaneously generates a photon. Because some of these discarded energy carrying photons make their way to outer space, the energy loss from these cycles further helps to cool the atmosphere. Finally, those photons of specific LWIR wavelengths that have been emitted from our Earth’s surface may also be absorbed by our friendly CO2 molecule (providing it is sufficiently ‘cold’ that it could not, from it’s own kinetic energy, raise it’s own excitement state level by this quantum energy level. In itself, this will not raise the temperature of the LWIR-active molecule (but may allow that vibrational energy to be transferred as kinetic energy into a colder molecule which it collides with before it has a chance to spontaneously produce a photon – but this is not much different from the colder air molecules adjacent to the surface of the Earth taking energy from the warmer Earth’s surface by conduction – so this shouldn’t be a problem, even for Alarmists). Of all the photons emitted by our friendly CO2 molecule, some will be re-emitted towards outer space whilst some will be re-emitted in the direction of the Earth’s surface. Unless the solid / liquid molecule on the surface of the Earth that is impacted by the photon is of a lower energy value than the energy value conveyed by the LWIR wavelength photon, then this new energy will not be thermalized by the Earth’s surface.
Am I anywhere close to how I should be thinking about the true behaviour / effect of the various LWIR-active molecules in our Earth’s atmosphere?
Steve T., … looks well thought out to me.
Now how might this defeat the “slowed cooling” claim of the grimhouse-“theory” aficionados?
Maybe a CO2 photon of energy equal to or lower than Earth’s emitting-surface photon cannot inhibit the action of the Earth-emitting-surface photon, but rather rejoins the flow of all such photons to cool at the same rate?? ( I don’t know, … just trying to extend your line of thinking to defeat that damn “slowed cooling” claim at the quantum level).
Steve, for FWIW, I liked it also.
As I read along, I thought you were going to forget collisions. But, you got to them, before the end.
I smiled each time you used “friendly CO2 molecule”. If a looney reads that, there will likely be smoke coming out his ears. They so believe that CO2 is a “toxic” gas. Nice touch.
I saw that “Doc” Spin-cer has a new post up.
This time, he is referring to himself as a “Skeptic”. He usually uses the term “Lukewarmer”.
The reality is he believes in the GHE, so he’s a Warmist.
So many different labels. I wonder if he’s ever used “charlatan”?
RK,
You may already have heard of it, but Brownian (random walk) motion is the reason that CO2 and other “heavier” gases can distribute themselves “up” into the atmosphere. That being said, while Brownian motion has those effects of oddifying (yes, I make up words) distributions (kurtosis if you like stats- skewing the curve), buoyancy of different components in a fluid are still also governed by their specific traits, ie heavier CO2 will tend to sink because it is higher density. While CO2 can be found high up in the atmosphere, it will be more sparse the higher you go, because the statistical mechanics reality is the odds are overwhelmingly against it due to our friend G and the buoyancy of the fluid. This is why there is a treeline in the mountains above which the CO2 level is too low to support the healthy production of tree growth. So as CO2 levels increase the elevation of the tree line will go up the mountains. Offhand, I don’t know if any scientific literature have tracked this expected effect.
JP et al- I wrote this off the top of the noggin so if I made any errors please thrash them accordingly.
On a side note, I am not sure if I’ve ever seen anyone point it out- but if the RGHE is legit how come we don’t modify the Gas Laws to correct for the necessary deltas that it would generate? Pressure must necessarily be modified (+) due to the powers of backradiation no? So where is the math that accounts for this power? Or any of the other physics that should be impacted by the magical gas notion? SB, Planck…etc, etc
Perhaps that was Tom Brady’s secret during deflate-gate???
RK: [“Now how might this defeat the “slowed cooling” claim of the grimhouse-“theory” aficionados?“]
Robert,
I believe I addressed this in most of 2:16pm on 12/06/18 upthread.
The only effective way to slow a cooling rate is to insulate against heat loss.
An average photon emitted by a CO2 molecule which has absorbed LWIR from the (warmer in all but a very few occasions) surface cannot add internal (thermal) energy to the receiving surface molecule because the molecule is already at a higher energy level. Insolation from the Sun CAN add energy to the surface molecule because the photon from the Sun is at a much higher energy level (shorter wavelength).
What the warmists are saying – now – is that the addition of CO2 acts as insulation, slowing the heat loss. This is nonsense on any practical level as the concentration of CO2 is too low to behave like insulation EVEN IF CO2 was an effective insulator – which it is not.
The reason the warmists have changed their argument is because they are finally beginning to realise that what Joe Postma has been saying all along is correct.
And Steve Titcombe is correct when he states: Unless the solid / liquid molecule on the surface of the Earth that is impacted by the photon is of a lower energy value than the energy value conveyed by the LWIR wavelength photon, then this new energy will not be thermalized by the Earth’s surface..
Best of luck trying to argue with true believers…!
Matt, all good points.
Manufacturers of CO2 “sniffers” use 3% per 1000 feet for calibration.
If the instrument measures 400 ppm at sea level, it should measure 280 ppm at 10,000 ft. Since most plants require at least 250 ppm, it makes since that the tree line is correlated
geran, Matt in Frisco…
Isn’t the Mauna Loa measurement taken at 3400 meters altitude? Doesn’t this mean 400 ppm is at 3400m? So what is it at the surface? Or am I missing something?
Arfur
Hi Arfur,
That’s correct. The instrument would have to be calibrated for the altitude. Some of the more expensive devices can make the calibration internally, as they also have built-in altimeters.
Click to access CarbonDioxideCalibration.pdf
I just noticed my typo: “it makes since that the tree line is correlated”
…it makes SENSE…
Can I blame it on auto-correct?
🙂
@geran
Geran, the only part of that I disagree with is “warming” .. what you state is certainly true in that CO2 results in more cooling than warming since CO2 cannot result in warming at all. Perhaps I should have stated my response thusly.
arfurbryant,
Your latest comment seems to have caused me to clarify my thinking.
Let me see if I can parrot it back to you:
* In order to slow cooling, we have to have insulation.
* In order for CO2 to slow cooling on Earth, then, it would have to act as insulation.
* Problem is, there is NOT enough CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere to act as an insulator, AND CO2 is a poor insulator, as well, and so CO2 cannot slow cooling on Earth.
* Even if CO2 could slow cooling, this does NOT, in any way, mean that CO2 could add any heat that was not already there because of some other overriding reason.
Is that about how you see it ?
I would add:
If anything, CO2 ASSISTS cooling, and aids in distributing energy, which allows Earth’s atmosphere to maintain a range of temperatures that has enabled the life and landscapes we see.
Squid, thanks for the clarification.
It makes “cynse”.
(Take that, auto-correct!)
Thanks Geran et al.
Re CO2 insulation, I consider it a coolant as per it’s measurable physical properties. No different than adding more H2O to a cooling tower for a nuclear power plant. If we are increasing the Cp for the average parcel of air in a kinetic system like the atmosphere, then we are necessarily increasing it’s capacity to cool the hot dirt it’s in convective contact with. The only delta is the change in the thermal gradient that you cannot reasonably observe except in a laboratory. That is read as changing the way energy is distributed in the atmosphere- there is no new energy via the magical gassiness, because it don’t exist. There is only Beer-Lambert and that is exactly the effect I just described. As Joe has pointed out many, many times this is a result of 2 things- idiots don’t know what heat vs energy is and/or they are just evil liars.
Cold high altitude CO2 has no capacity to do work on warmer bodies at lower altitude. Yes dick cold don’t heat hot. It can only cool them via convection or radiate to colder objects and space at higher altitude. Somewhere else here, I blathered about this via a quick model using Planck’s law (proven fact AFAIK), which I later discovered had already been done by a fellow named Jablonski. Just as with SB the math holds to the proven physics and again the RGHE is left in the dust of horrific charlatans.
I also wanted to point out a sin of omission (accidental) on the adjustment physics for the Ideal Gas Law etc required by the supposed existence of the RGHE. JP has made the point on a few occasions at least that there are no engineering tables etc- my point is really just an extrapolation of the same vein of thought, taken to the edge of what is necessary if their shitty hypothesis has any real world value. Which of course it does not, other than the tyrannical destruction that will result from their connivery. There are no mathematical adjustments. No tables. Just nothing. Same as the pile of evidence supporting the BA-RGHE.
In other words where is the
PV=nRT +(RGHEindex*Specific Radiative Gas constant etc) experiment and evidence please…Ain’t none. It isn’t necessary because those “other energies are already accounted for in the IGL model. The notion that there is this other magic that happens is Total Shammery.
I have a nice copy of The measurement and detection of IR. Shocked that there is nothing in there on RGHE either.
Arfur,
You would have to have the methodology for how they are taking the measurement. There may be a standard methodology and as Geran alludes depending on the instrument it may be calibrating based on it’s location. Somewhere that should be disclosed by the Group running the data operation. One of my contentions with Mauna Loa has always been that sitting on top of a Volcano in an active string of Volcanoes in the middle of the Pacific is a pretty crappy location to gather unbiased measurements of atmospheric CO2. Partial pressure outgassing over the largest body of water on earth on top of a Volcano can’t be helpful . Skewing the data much? How much?
So what happens to these ‘cavity photons’ once they leave the inside surface of the shell and have traversed the void of the cavity and strike the external surface of the solid sphere on the inside of the cavity? Are they absorbed, to cause additional warming of the sphere? are they reflected? are they repelled? are they scattered? Without offering any evidence, in my previous post I merely asserted that “Unless the solid / liquid molecule on the surface of the Earth that is impacted by the photon is of a lower energy value than the energy conveyed by the LWIR wavelength photon, then this new energy will not be thermalized by the Earth’s surface”. It was a glib statement, and I knew it.
The consensus science of the both the Alarmists and the Lukewarmers would say that they are absorbed by the hotter surface and their energy thermalized and it is by this mechanism that the Earth’s own emitted LWIR-photons, when received as back-radiation, can increase (by delayed cooling) the Surface temperature of the Earth. But can this be true? I must admit that I had some openness to their argument, as I couldn’t, with hand on heart, explain what really does happen to that energy which is delivered by those photons.
I am frustrated by the apparent lack of empirical evidence which can either validate or invalidate the notion of back-radiation – but I’m not a Physicist. Of course, there are ‘thought-experiments’ on either side of the argument but none appear to convince the “other” side. So I’m not ashamed to create another one, so here goes;
In Joe’s article, he clearly showed the absurdity of the back-radiation argument, as the radius of the shell is systematically diminished to become almost that of the sphere. Yet, the Sky Dragon still breathes. From what I can ascertain, the Sky Dragon survives because the back-radiation supporters say: “There’s no extra energy being created. The extra energy that’s required to further raise the temperature of the solid sphere is provided during the (increased) time required for the two objects in the thought experiment to achieve the steady-state (where the solid steel spherical ball and the thin steel spherical shell are each moving towards their own respective thermodynamic equilibrium temperatures)”.
What if we said that, in my thought experiment, the steel sphere has the same radius as that of Joe’s spherical shell which (in Joe’s scenario was only just larger than his solid steel sphere).
Furthermore, my steel sphere (with the same internal power source of course) is wholly steel in it’s construction throughout but, unlike Joe’s sphere, comprises many thousands of very thin shells, all compressed together, like laminations, but still solid steel, with no gaps anywhere.
At this point in the thought experiment, the single object in my scenario is allowed to warm up to it’s thermodynamic equilibrium temperature being the same temperature as that of Joe’s shell (because it has the identical surface area to Joe’s shell).
Once thermodynamic equilibrium has been reached, we will use the creative opportunity that only a thought experiment could allow: we “vanish” the second outermost laminate layer away – gone!
Now, you’ll realise that the outermost laminated layer, which was originally providing the external surface of the sphere, is now a shell surrounding a very slightly smaller sphere. Actually, what we now have is the same as Joe’s scenario. So what do I expect to see?
I expect to see the shell remain at this thermodynamic temperature. This temperature is now maintained by the photons emitted from the sphere (rather than by conduction as was the case before the second most outer shell was “vanished”).
Does the sphere get hotter? Well, actually it does. Not by any perceivable amount admittedly, but this is only because the sphere and the shell have almost identical radius values.
But as I continue to take the external layers off of the sphere – the shell remains the same temperature, the remaining sphere must get hotter. It gets hotter, not because of back-radiation emitted from the shell. We can be certain of that: The shell needs all of it’s energy that it’s receiving from the sphere to continue radiating at the power necessary to correspond to it’s constant temperature. No, the sphere gets hotter only because the sphere has less surface from which to radiate it’s power being provided by it’s internal power source.
So now we get to some point where the magic of me vanishing these outer layers from the sphere is no longer entertaining the crowds, and say that happens when the radius of the sphere is now half of that radius of the shell. Is the story over? Hell no. The most recently exposed surface of the sphere continues to send photons to the shell and the shell receives this energy, conducts it across it’s thin steel skin and emits it at the same rate as it did when it was part of the solid sphere (all those onion skins ago).
But here’s the real revelation, the shell has never done anything other than emit photons from it’s outer external surface. It was doing so when it was part of the sphere and then continued doing so when it first became a shell, and all times thereafter. What I now realise is that the inner surface of that shell never once had the opportunity to emit photons, not one! The photons traversing that originally miniscule gap were all going in one direction – away from the sphere towards the shell.
Even as the sphere got gradually smaller the only direction for any photon in that gap was always only “away from the sphere”.
There is no back radiation from the shell to the sphere because there is no backward photons! I’m sorted.
Perhaps it’s a photon ‘pressure’ thing – the hotter surface has more power density and forces the photons out of the sphere and prevents photons leaving the inner surface of the shell. I realise that my thought experiment can’t do the physics to prove it – but it tells me that these photons all go away from the power source – none come back the other way.
Tonight I’ll sleep like a baby (but I won’t be surprised to wake up to a shit storm in the morning when I get told that I’m an idiot – but that’s tomorrow). Goodnight.
That’s pretty good Steve and does summarize the post here. This is all about waves. Does passing two identical waves through each other increased their frequency? No, you just get constructive and destructive interference. No effect on their frequencies or the source frequencies. The waves going in either direction would only resonate and/or constructively and destructively interfere at the opposite sources. You need a frequency increase for temperature increase and there is no mechanism in physics where two waves increase their frequency when they interact. They just interfere. This is all the basis of Fourier Transform theory of course.
RGHE is high-level pseudoscience.
I just realized that the word, “pseudoscience”, can be abbreviated as “PS”, which is strikingly similar to “BS”.
Robert
[“Your latest comment seems to have caused me to clarify my thinking.
Let me see if I can parrot it back to you:
* In order to slow cooling, we have to have insulation.
* In order for CO2 to slow cooling on Earth, then, it would have to act as insulation.
* Problem is, there is NOT enough CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere to act as an insulator, AND CO2 is a poor insulator, as well, and so CO2 cannot slow cooling on Earth.
* Even if CO2 could slow cooling, this does NOT, in any way, mean that CO2 could add any heat that was not already there because of some other overriding reason.
Is that about how you see it ?“]
Yes, that is how I see it. With the small caveat that your fourth bullet point could probably be adjusted to state CO2 could not add heat “to the surface”. Technically it could add heat to the atmosphere (by non-elastic collisions mostly and very slightly by radiation but this impact would be very small (probably not even measurable) and mostly transient as the CO2 would also act as a cooling medium via radiation (as you state in your postscript – which I also agree with!
🙂
Arfur
geran and Matt,
Thank you both for your comments and info on the CO2 calibration.
Two points spring to mind:
It will depend upon what metric is used for the adjustment for altitude. At least, if one metric is used then they will compare apples with apples.
It does mean that, like MBH98, there is no sensible comparison between pre- and post- the start of Mauna Loa measurements. Ice core data v modern calibrators? Another example of Warmist science? The only vague truism would be that CO2 has increased since Mauna Loa. Were the scripps data made using the same calibration? Is the change in concentration linear and similar across the globe?
Interesting. Thank you.
Arfur
arfur and Robert, the carbon dioxide and water do in fact act as insulators.
They insulate against the 22% of sunlight not reaching the surface.
This isn’t too complicated, but any treatment of the Earth-Atmosphere complex,
as anything but a cold bath, with cold, light blocking insulation added,
immediately leads to brain atrophy,
with resultant loss of thermodynamics IQ points.
That’s just how it is, because that’s all there is to it.
When someone tells you they’re contemplating the temperature of the planet, the first thing they do,
is figure out how MUCH energy is striking the surface.
Then they’ll talk about albedo: how much of whatever gets to Earth, is thermalized.
Our part
is how much gets to it.
25,000 ppm water,
and
400 ppm carbon dioxide,
insulate the surface of this planet against 20+%
of otherwise available warming firelight from the sun.
If there were none of these 25,400 ppm in refractive gases,
all that 22% would get through, and join the rest of the energy
warming the surface: hence, included in calculating surface temp.
What happened the first 25,40 times you added 10 additional ppm GHGs to the atmosphere?
The amount of sunlight to the planet reduced.
How much by now..? 22%.
22% cooling by the green house gases,
BEFORE the conduction cooling
by those same gases starts.
Insulating the planet is precisely what they do. The word insulate means today
about what it meant in the 1700s.
===
Word Origin and History for insulate
verb; 1530s, “make into an island,” from Latin insulatus, from insula (see insular).
Sense of “cause a person or thing to be detached from surroundings” is from 1785.
Electrical/chemical sense of “block from electricity or heat” is from 1742. Related: Insulated; insulating
===
And in fact the thermal conductivity of CO2 is significantly below that of air. Observe the chart if you will.
https://www.electronics-cooling.com/1998/09/the-thermal-conductivity-of-gases/#
It is true the CO2 is in such tiny quantity it doesn’t matter here – but it is of an insulating nature.
The main GHG family component is of course water, at 25,000 ppm average. It’s thermal conductivity is lower, too.
https://www.electronics-cooling.com/2003/11/the-thermal-conductivity-of-moist-air/
Something else I think it’s important to remember: any claim ever – of somehow the Earth making an amount of light remotely competitive with the amount the sun makes,
in ANY spectrum,
is preposterous fuel for ridicule of that person. The sun’s volume of light in every single wavelength ever produced by Earth, DWARFS Earth’s own meager output.
The cooling greenhouse gases fit the definitions of insulation in every sense, and the moment this gets by you,
you have lost the capacity to combat the very first inversion in physics of the scam: the claim that GHGs warm the Earth. ANY. At ALL. They cool the Earth before light even reaches the Earth, by being the reason it doesn’t reach it. This 22% difference in available warming energy is taken in whole, off the top, before surface temperature calculation begins. The entire value of the 22% is taken off, there is no “Backerdistical” defiance of Conservation of Energy. The GHGs reduce available energy 22% and that’s what gets subtracted from your calculations.
I’m pointing this out, because there’s only one right way to consider these gases and the cooling, their insulating value creates. Straightforward: without any spin.
The math is perfectly clear.
22% light reduction is 22% reduction in calculated temperature. Every single Watt, every single MILLIWATT they remove, is taken RIGHT off the top of temperature calculation.
This is proof there is no “Backerdistical Warming” which makes heat sensors depict more warming light reaching them,
everytime insulation
reduces the warming light reaching them.
Because gas physics are so disorderly, hence simple, they don’t have very good characteristics
for many fields of endeavor, because they don’t form structures.
Accordingly, -=their mathematics are quite simple.=-
Hypothetically if you exhale into a big storage unit till you had exhaled 2.35 pounds of air,
no matter how many times you got drunk in the moonlight, dancing half naked in chicken blood
with a (wonderful) girl whose help you sought through an “intensive research internship” –
chanting and stomping, swaying and sweating, you’re not ever going to get up
from a long day’s work after the incantations till dawn,
comforting what’s her name over her guilt that
the purity of her incantations aren’t working, –
check the exhaled-air can,
and see that sh** finally
transformed into a
go-cart wheel.
Because those gases, aren’t as sophisticated
as your local go-cart wheel’s
solid-phase matter.
Since there’s no structure, hence no order,
the mathematics of gases, is simplest
of the 3 common matter phases.
No matter how many Holy Solstices you hammer, and torch and fold and quench through,
flexing for Miss DaisyDukes, your Voodoo Dancing “research assistant,”
your local quarter pound of air can’t ever be formed into neat,
matching half-heart-shaped pendants, and personalized
jewel-encrusted chains for you two love birds.
With all the associated mathematics,
defining their various dimensions.
Nope. No structures, no order,
no complex mathematics.
Although I can certainly see why you’re so happy together.
I didn’t realize she traveled all the way from Japan to help
till we were looking at her papers, and charging stand.
The point is
when you start talking about a gas bath
as anything more than just a gas bath,
you might as well make hammering motions,
and clang-clang sounds with your voice,
and pretend to forge a magic sword
from the air you’re exhaling.
There isn’t really insulation
making less light reach a sensor
making it show more light reaching it,
every time the insulation makes less light reach it.
The condensed version of this is:
Less and less light to a sensor
isn’t ever
more and more light to a sensor.
The Federal government’s version of this is:
“Magical gais dun made a cold bath a heedur,
jist as shure as pot’s like Heroin!
And we got the critical
research university
peer-review to
PRuVe it in
COART,
TWO!”
Yaw.
I’ve shown you all as clearly as you’d point it out to a 12 year old,
the green house gases are responsible for 22% cooling
before the sunlight ever even reaches earth
by simply removing it, through refraction.
Steve Titcombe basically laid down a textbook description of gas refraction,
with it’s minimal thermalization, for the relatively large amount of light redirected.
Figure out for yourselves, how to bring up the fact that anyone who claims
green house gases “warm the planet 33 degrees more than if they weren’t there,”
has to be able to tell you where the energy comes from
to make up for the 22% of the sun’s entire energy,
the very GHGs in question, removed from surface
temperature calculation?
They make 22% of the sun’s entire energy go away.
Everyone admits that when they calculate temperature
using light intensity
at sea level.
For GHGs to then make the entire nitrogen bath
“33 degrees warmer than if they weren’t there,”
first they have to deliver back the 22% they took AWAY.
Then, and ONLY after they do that, they have to
CONTINUE to warm the entire cold nitrogen bath,
until the whole thing,
is what?
“33 degrees warmer, than if the green house gases
weren’t there.” Their Church’s claims are very clear about this.
The narrative of “signts” is that: “While removing 22% sunlight
they simultaneously, magically RE-WARM the bath 22%
to “breaking even” again
then continue magically supplying energy to the bath
till it’s 33 degrees WARMER than with no GHGs.
YaW.
-=That’s their story=-
And every single symbol and syllable and sentence of it
is UTTERLY preposterous inversion fraud.
Allan Eltor…
[“ It is true the CO2 is in such tiny quantity it doesn’t matter here – but it is of an insulating nature.”]
I don’t disagree with you at all, Allan. The key word I used upthread was ‘effective’ when discussing the insulating properties of CO2.
If you look at your second graph (moist air), the difference between thermal conductivity of air at standard surface air temperature of 15 deg C is negligible (0.0254 v 0.0255 W/m.K), compared to CO2 at 0.017 W/m.K. Whilst this makes CO2 a slightly better insulator theoretically, its paltry concentration in the atmosphere cf H2O renders the insulating effect virtually unmeasurable and practically irrelevant.
The warmists are basically saying that a string vest made of 99.96% air and 0.04% cotton is going to keep you warm on a cold night… (and actually make you warmer!)
Cheers,
Arfur
Allen E.,
I thought ozone did most of what you are talking about.
I’m preparing my four year old grandson for school.
You guys can prepare your own kids too.
I have him already at the 5th grade level though he’s only 4.
Here’s how can help your 4 year-old with science too.
When it’s bath time bring an infrared heater into the bathroom.
fill the bath in two stages: first, turn on the cold water.
Ask the kid, “where’s the cold bath?” Train him to point to the heater.
Then ask him, “What makes the cold bath hot?” and train him to slap the water
and say “ColdGreenhouseGas!”
He’ll basically be ready to teach college at that point.
As soon as he can make his mark within spitting distance of a dotted line,
I think he’s gonna be ready to start paying Union dues.
I’ve already figured out how my grandson will test out of the 12th grade at 12.
I’ll teach him a practical experiment dramatically demonstrating the
Backerdistical Con Stunt.
We’ll coordinate with the teacher to install a room-air dryer the evening before,
so it runs all night removing any water from the air. Plants will consume the CO2.
When all the kids are assembled for the experiment
we’ll verify the overall green house gas count.
My grandson will say, “Now I will demonstrate the effect of adding 3% cold greenhouse gases
to air, so 22% of energy from the sun, doesn’t warm the temperature of the planet,”
and he’ll reach over and push a button, and my 200,000 BTU kerosene orchard heater,
will come on, until the temperature in the room is 22% warmer.
Then, 33 degrees warmer than THAT.
Then he’ll beam and say, “That’s how much Green House Gases, warm the Earth,
when they take away 22% of the warming light of the sun.
Just imagine how much Hoddurn’Hoddur we would have, if they was to take 25% away!”
“Robert Kernodle says:
2018/06/23 at 11:43 AM
Allen E.,
I thought ozone did most of what you are talking about.”
==
Here’s a decent chart to commit to memory.
Where it turns red The 52% labled “near infrared” is about 12% near-infrared: a little slice there where fewer and fewer people can detect light,
then true infrared rounds out the rest of that 52%
at 40% true infra, 12% near. The chart’s often seen
with the 12% slot pointed out and labeled as well.
Let’s take a closer look.
Now I’m attempting to counter another version of the “slowed cooling” argument, which is the “delayed exit of long wave infrared radiation”. The argument is that CO2 “delays the exit of long wave infrared radiation”. Is this the same as saying that CO2 acts to insulate the surface ?
It’s always the same 4, 5 faked claims around the slowed cooling Robert.
.
I shouldn’t have hit post, but yes. The claim of the THICKER INSULATION SLOWING COOLING
is MAGICAL GAISSINESS dun made uh COLD BATH uh HEEDUR, CENTRAL.
Encouraged by the absence of that anticipated shit-storm, and not discouraged by Joe’s faint praise, I’ll continue from my previous post…
Now, where did I get to? Ah yes….
There is NO back-radiation from the Shell to the Sphere, because there are NEVER any backward photons emitted from the interior surface of the Shell.
“How do I know this?” you might ask (because of course you’re still thinking this was only a thought-experiment). Well, I DO know this because Dr. Josef Stefan told me. You see, he said that the radiant energy density inside a blackbody cavity can be determined by e = aT^4 (where a is Stefan’s Constant of 7.56 x 10^-16 Joules M^-3 K^-4) – and I promise I’ll come back to his blackbody cavity experiments in a moment – but for now: At the surface of the (hotter) Sphere (who’s reduced area is now only a quarter of the interior surface of the Shell), the radiant energy density must also correspond to that surface’s own temperature to the fourth power. Likewise, at the interior surface of the (cooler) Shell (who’s area has remained the same as when it first became a Shell but is now four times greater than that of the external surface of the Sphere), the radiant energy density must also correspond to that surface’s own temperature to the fourth power. Now that the two objects are in their steady-state (such that each are at their own thermodynamic equilibrium temperatures for their respective surface area), there can be no excuses for the radiant power densities at these two different locations to be anything other than what Dr. Stefan says they must be. So, clearly, when these two objects are in the steady-state, there’s a radiant energy density gradient between the external surface of the Sphere and the internal surface of the Shell. All of the energy that is represented by the radiant energy density gradient has been emitted from the Sphere, and as this energy radiates out from the Sphere (don’t imagine at the speed of light – but instead imagine the steady-state of the radiant energy density gradient across the gap) at greater and greater distances from the surface of the Sphere, it’s energy density gradually diminishes until it eventually extends out to the interior surface of the Shell (by which time the radiant energy density will now be one quarter of what it is at the surface of the Sphere) – and this radiant energy density value will determine the interior surface temperature of the Shell. If the interior surface of the Shell tried to emit just one photon, just one, the radiant energy density immediately above the interior surface of the Shell would be violated, such that Dr. Stefan’s Law would be invalidated, and that ain’t gonna happen any time soon (unless James Hansen or Michael E. Mann instigate that too).
Getting back to Dr. Stefan’s black-body cavity (I promised that I would), I have come to realise that, immediately just above any part of the surface of the cavity Shell, the photons which comprise the radiant energy density there: on average, just half of that energy has been emitted from that surface and whilst just half will be received by that same surface when the photon strikes it i.e. only in that special case (and I’m not sure that Dr. Stefan realised that he’d found that one special case) where the radiant energy density is uniform throughout the entire cavity, can all parts of the entire surface of that cavity be emitting 50% and receiving 50% of the energy which comprises that radiant energy density at that surface. In all other cases, where a radiant energy density gradient exists, ABSOLUTELY NO photons WHATSOEVER are ever emitted from a surface towards a region that has a higher radiant energy density.
As I said previously, I no longer have cognitive dissonance. With the help of Joe, Allen Eltor and a guy called Charles R. Anderson, I’m sorted, and the theory of back-radiation (and the RGHE) is finished.
However, my enlightenment does throw up some unexpected consequences: Not least the realisation that the Earth’s surface DOES NOT emit any photons when it’s receiving energy from our Sun i.e. even the Earth’s surface can not produce ‘back-radiation’ towards the Sun. Consequently, the Earth’s surface will only emit LWIR-radiation when (a) if Dr. Stefan’ special case applies (and for many reasons it just can’t) or (b) when the radiant energy density resulting from the Earth’s surface temperature is greater than the radiant energy density imposed immediately above the surface of the Earth from our Sun i.e. at dusk, night time and dawn. During the day time when the Sun is shining, the Earth can only absorb photons and can only cool by surface conduction with cooler air molecules and by water evaporation. By the way, to be very clear, I said “DOES NOT emit” – that doesn’t also mean that the Earth’s surface can not reflect photons when the Sun’s energy is cast upon it – reflection and emission are two entirely different things. Thanks for reading.
By the way, the Wikipedia contributor thinks that the Stefan Constant is the same as the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant but my old text books (‘Thermal Physics’ by Philip M. Morse is a good one) differ. So if you’re going to check out all of what I’m saying, don’t look there for wise words of knowledge – it can’t be relied upon.
Steve, you seem to be saying a cold surface would stop emitting, if a warmer surface started “shining” on it. That may be hard to prove, since all surfaces emit based on their temperature, not their environment.
You’re trying to disprove the “back-radiation” nonsense. The best way to disprove it is at the absorber, not the emitter. An absorber can NOT be heated by a colder emitter. That’s a clear violation of 2LoT, and is taken care of by the mismatch of photon wavelengths.
Toward the end of your comment, you used the word “reflection”. That is the 800 pound gorilla in the room–REFLECTION!
Sophists do not want to believe in reflection, but it is a real and verifiable phenomenon. It happens all the time. We see objects because visible light is being reflected. As you said, “reflection and emission are two entirely different things”. A blue shirt is not “emitting” blue wavelengths, it is “reflecting” blue wavelengths. The Sun is NOT being heated by infrared from Earth, it is reflecting it. Just as Earth is NOT being warmed by a colder atmosphere.
Over at https://www.facebook.com/groups/climate.discussion/ there are AGW Cultists, and that is the only way to describe them, claim that slowing the rate of heat loss, a slower drop to the temperature, is actually increasing the temperature.
My reply to such Alice in Wonderland physics is that when I put less pressure on the brakes of my car, my slower speed drop is actually increasing my speed.
The reply then comes that it’s a false analogy.
Except it is EXACTLY the same thing since temperature is the measure of the speed of molecules.
Then the insults start…
These such people are psychopaths or something JRW. Slowed cooling from -18C input is heating to +15C! Lol Sophists.
It DOES seem obvious, when you put it this succinctly.
How does a cooler atmosphere SLOW the cooling of a warmer surface, again ? How does an ice cube SLOW the cooling of a space heater, again ?
Psychosophists seem to be able to confuse something very basic with a complex barrage of words that looks authoritative, but is actually nonsense.
These jeans, then,
should keep you warm on a cold winter’s day.
Robert:
[“Now I’m attempting to counter another version of the “slowed cooling” argument, which is the “delayed exit of long wave infrared radiation”. The argument is that CO2 “delays the exit of long wave infrared radiation”. Is this the same as saying that CO2 acts to insulate the surface ?”]
LOL! 🙂
Any such delay would be measured in seconds or minutes. As compared to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which – by their own admission – is currently increasing at an alarming (/sarc) rate of 0.75 parts per million PER YEAR!
Too funny.
If you are in a lit room surrounded by mirrors, how long does it take to go dark when the lights go out? Hey, double the number of mirrors…!
To continue beating the dead horse:
Does an ice cube delay the cooling of a lit match ? I don’t think so.
Then how can a cool Earth atmosphere delay the cooling of a warmer Earth surface ?
Energy from the cooler atmosphere cannot subtract from the energy of the warmer surface, can it ? If the cooler atmosphere can delay, then it has to somehow slow down the warmer surface. Lower energy must somehow slow down higher energy, rather than higher energy speeding up lower energy. If lower energy can somehow slow down higher energy, then it must be able to change the emission property of the higher-energy source. But this means that the lower-energy source must somehow preempt the temperature at which the higher-energy source was radiating to produce the higher energy that the lower energy preempted.
In other words, it seems that the higher-energy source could NEVER have been at the temperature at which it was radiating in the first place. But if this were true, then the lower-energy source could NOT have stood in the relationship that enabled it to lower the temperature of the higher-energy source. In other words, the relationship that started the whole comparison could never exist without contradiction.
These jeans, then,
should keep you warm on a cold winter’s day.
You guys go on ahead to the Climate Conference,
I’m gonna stay back here and help this Climate Refugee get war.
It’s not as glorious as catching bedbugs and staff infections camping out in the boulevard so we can throw rocks at grandma’s investor, and call him names, but it’s a sacrifice that’s gotta be made. Go, Comrades, and rid the world of jeans with all the mater –
with all this materialism.
Viva luh ReV’uLeW-SHuN YaW!”
Aw man, WARM I need to help her stay WARM. Nevermind, we’ll make our own war on clothes.
… the up side of believing that 0.04% of a mass covering can provide significant warmth, I guess.
Let’s encourage all toned, fit women to believe this, and then when they discover that we have made some extreme claims for these extreme jeans, then tell them to just ignore their sense data and keep on believing that a bare minimum of cloth fibers is quite sufficient to cause the necessary heating.
… probably should have said “0.06% of a mass”, since 0.04% (in relation to CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere) is the VOLUME percentage, if I remember correctly, whereas, 0.06% is the MASS percentage).
ARGUMENT: Back radiation adds energy to the surface, thereby increasing temperature.
COUNTERARGUMENT: Back radiation is less energetic than surface radiation, and so it CANNOT add more energy, … to increase temperature. Radiation from a cooler source cannot add energy to a warmer source.
ARGUMENT: Back radiation delays or slows the exit of radiation from the surface, thereby increasing temperature.
COUNTERARGUMENT: Slowing the exit of surface radiation means causing a backup of surface radiation behind the back-radiated energy field, which means adding surface energy back to itself again. In order to block the surface energy from exiting as fast, energy has to be increased between the surface and the back-radiation field, but adding energy back onto itself this way is not possible.
Either way, whether you add energy from back radiation to surface energy, or you block the exit of surface energy with back radiation, you are still adding energy to the surface that CANNOT be accounted for by the given input from the sun. You either add it outright from back radiation, or you add it by backing it up behind back radiation.
Back-radiation adding = Back-radiation blocking = Thermoretardism
Hi Joe, I’ve recently sent you an email to your @live email address rather than post something here. I’m hoping you haven’t missed it, because I think it’s quite significant – it hits the nail on the head. Of course, please delete this ‘Reply’ from the discussion thread once you’ve seen the email). Cheers
@Robert,
Consider giving a reason why the cooler atmosphere cannot further heat the hotter surface.
Example 1: Give 2 molecules (any), molecule A and molecule B … Molecule A can transfer energy to molecule B and increase the energy state of molecule B, if, and only if, molecule A is of greater energy state than molecule B … there are no exceptions to this universal law (without additional work).
Example 2: Like a spinning bicycle wheel, slapping my hand along the wheel can only speed the rotation of the wheel, if, and only if, the energy of my hand slap (velocity) is greater than the spin of the wheel in the first place. .. there are no exceptions to this universal law (without additional work).
Case closed … the GHE cannot, in no uncertain terms, exist within our universe. Our universe cannot coexist with the GHE theory. It is physically impossible.
squid,
The case is clearly closed, when the manner of speaking relates to the atmosphere’s lower radiant energy being able to add energy to the surface’s higher energy. It’s somehow easier to see that lower energy cannot increase higher energy even more, when you talk about ADDING it.
It seems less clear, when the manner of speaking relates to “slowing” or “delaying”, and that’s what I have been trying to nail down in as clear a counter argument as possible.
Here’s the best I seem to have come up with so far:
“Delaying” or “slowing” means the lower-energy Earth atmosphere causes the higher-energy Earth surface to add more energy to itself from its own energy, rather than adding more energy from the atmosphere directly. The Earth surface must radiate more energy than it was radiating before, because it has to produce this extra energy out of nowhere, which is even worse than saying that the atmosphere added the extra energy. “Delaying” or “slowing” means adding from the surface. What these words do is create the added energy from energy already present on the surface, WITHOUT adding any energy from above.
It says, okay, we cannot add the energy from the atmosphere to the surface directly, but we can add some of the energy from the surface twice.
It just changes the locus of the faulty addition, … from atmosphere to surface. If you cannot pull it out of your ass from the atmosphere, then try to pull it out of your ass from the surface.
Here’s a drawing I did that I’ve shown before, but now I’m looking at it with a refreshed perspective:
By “slowing cooling” or “delaying radiation’s exit”, the photon field would have to compress in such a way that its density would increase, which would be ADDING energy to the surface WITHOUT ADDITIONAL INPUT energy into the system.
If the surface would come to emit at a higher temperature, where did the EXTRA energy come from to cause this? ANSWER: The extra energy had to come from the pool of energy already there, which means energy already there, to which is added extra energy created out of that same energy, which means counting some of the energy already there TWICE !
So, “slowed cooling” or “delayed exit” means counting some of the surface radiation TWICE.
Robert, a simple ice cube is a nearly perfect emitter. Its emission spectrum is almost that of a black body. The peak energy of the spectrum occurs at about 10 µ. The “feared” atmospheric CO2 emits photons with wavelength about 15 µ.
Since a photon’s energy is proportional to its wavelength, the ice photon is about 50% “hotter” than that from CO2.
So have some Warmist/Lukewarmer try to “slow the cooling” of a brick wall, by holding an ice cube as close as possible without touching it.
When he fails (and you stop laughing) explain to him that CO2 has even less ability to “slow the cooling”.
It’s a simple “home experiment” that anyone can do, and is easily supported by established physics.
Why limit it to just an ice cube ? Build a WALL of ice in front of the brick wall.
And ask, “Does the ice wall slow cooling of the brick wall, or does the brick wall speed warming of the ice wall ?”
Double the thickness of the ice wall. And ask, “Does doubling the thickness of the ice wall slow cooling of the brick wall even more? No. There’s just MORE ice wall for the brick wall to speed the melting of. The ice wall of double thickness now has more mass for the brick wall to heat up at the same rate of radiation.
Similarly, there might be a slight bit more molecules in Earth’s atmosphere that Earth’s surface heats up at the same rate of radiation. Does the atmosphere melt faster ? — No. I think it radiates energy away faster. Atmospheric energy that radiates back in the direction of the surface intermingles with energy of the SAME (or less) intensity without any capacity to add anything to it, then rejoins the stream of more of that energy radiating radially OUTWARD from the planet into space.
Cool radiation cannot “slow down” warmer radiation, just as cool radiation cannot add to warmer radiation. Cool radiation is “heated” by warm radiation, in one direction, outward from it.
Somebody stop me, if I’m screwing up the picture.
geran,
You meant “inversely proportional to its wavelength”, didn’t you ?
Yes, good catch!
The “50% hotter” is the correct calculation, but I omitted “inversely” in the text.
Robert,
I think you’re fixating on ‘energy’ too much. The cAGW debate shouldn’t be about energy, it should be about temperature.
If you add two glasses of water (each at 15 deg C with ‘X’ amount of energy each) to each other (in a larger receptacle), you have 2 x X energy in the receptacle but you have the same temperature.
It is not the energy ‘per se’ that matters, it is the power or intensity of that energy which can contribute (or not) to the internal (thermal if you like) energy of the receiver. So the Sun heats the Earth because its photons carry much higher energy which, when absorbed ‘for internal energy gain’.
So-called back-radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere carries a lower energy state (longer wavelength) than the radiation being emitted from the Earth’s surface (in the vast majority of locations at any one time). Therefore, as squid2112 and geran have explained, such radiation cannot add to the ‘temperature’ (internal energy) of the surface molecules – because the surface molecules are ALREADY emitting at a higher intensity. The back-radiation photons are reflected (or more correctly absorbed for no energy gain and instantly re-emitted) or possibly transmitted through.
This is what the warmists don’t get. According to them, we would get warmer by listening to a radio in another room. The world is full of radiative energy but we only get warmer by absorbing higher-energy (shorter wavelength) photons (on average) than our body can emit. I say on average because it is essentially the ‘average’ of photon energy that counts; there may be the odd photon that is of sufficiently shorter wavelength. This works both ways.
As to ‘slowing cooling’, this can only happen by insulation (already discussed) or by the cooler object becoming warmer because rate of cooling depends on the difference between the two objects. If CO2 could really (measurably in the real world) warm the atmosphere then the difference would reduce and cooling would slow. If the atmosphere warmed by any other mechanism the same would happen. The problem with the CO2 idea is that it also aids emission to space so it is possible that CO2 is a net cooler rather than net warmer.
When it comes to arguing with warmists, almost all arguments come down to a few basic truisms…
Radiation is not the same as heat.
Energy is not the same as temperature.
Atmospheric CO2 does not ‘effectively’ insulate the planet.
And, finally…
THERE IS NO MECHANISM BY WHICH ADDING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CAN MEASURABLY AFFECT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IN THE REAL WORLD.
If there is a mechanism – get them to prove it!
Regards,
Arfur
Robert, a world around you that is cooler than you are, does keep your temperature higher, longer, as opposed to your radiation leaking out into a world around you where – there IS no temperature only open empty space. In other worlds, two bricks, one sitting in space at very low energy-bath levels,
one of them encased in ice.
The one encased in ice, is going to have it’s own temperature never lower
below 32F or 0C, as long as that ice shall last, because radiation off the ice will in fact go toward and strike the warmer light bulb or whatever.
When this section of the scam was first invented it was a light bulb, and an ice cube, and some people threw it at Joseph
and tried to make it seem like they were telling the truth.
The light bulb vs the ice cube scam is an INVERSION of what’s really going ON.
I’m going to say this to you YET again Robert. The meat and bones of an inversion scam, is to get you counting something as leaving, staying,
coming,
as going,
growing,
as shrinking,
when,
due to it being as I labeled it – INVERSION scam,
the actual value is the OPPOSITE
of what you’re told
to think.
The secret here is recognizing what the inversion is: and the inversion, is pretending that the ever more insulating layer, is trapping more and more energy.
But the ice cube, as alleged to be the GHGs,
in this case,
isn’t stopping more and more energy from getting out as it gets thicker.
It’s stopping more and more – right now it’s 22% – from ever getting in.
Joseph was referring to a light bulb, in a different sense,
he was making remark about how,
if you’re not adding energy actual wattage, to an object glowing off wattage,
it doesn’t make any difference how much insulation you add,
your original object
will still emit the number of watts, it RECEIVES:
NOT MORE, as in Trenberth’s Conservation of Energy violating
“Earth Energy Budget.”
Some con man magic gasser said,
that if you have the light bulb at a hot temperature
and put an ice cube by it and turn it off so it starts glowing off it’s residual energy,
at some point as it glows down past the temperature of the ice,
the ice’s radiation would feed some energy to the surface of the bulb,
inhibiting emissions from the bulb by striking it with energy,
keeping it’s temperature from falling further.
The actual case is that – this isn’t an internally powered light bulb analogy any more.
The object ALLEGED to represent the Earth, the light bulb,
doesn’t get heat independent of the ice, then radiate it out through the ice.
The LIGHT comes IN THROUGH the ICE.
and, every time you add another __ in thickness of ice – a FULL PERCENT,
you REDUCE energy IN,
another FULL PERCENT.
This means that – you aren’t talking about glowing off the energy of a 100 watt bulb,
fed to it internally,
the switch then cut and residual energy allowed to glow off with the ice there.
No. In a REAL analogy, every time the ice grew thicker by X percent,
LESS energy would REACH the BULB to LEAVE it -by X percent.
This is one of the MAJOR INVERSIONS of this SCAM:
MAKE you DENY – FORGET – not MANDATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT,
of the 22% GREEN HOUSE GAS
COOLING
which makes the temperature of the planet go DOWN
every time there is more INSULATION
providing LESS LIGHT.
Do you understand what I’m saying Robert?
Without me being around
you need to be able to repeat this – not to yourself, anybody can be right:
but in front of dozens
if not scores
or even hundreds of others.
What’s REALLY happening is that there’s no independent internal energy source for yoN bulb in the second example.
Joseph remarked on “if there aren’t more watts in, it will never radiate more watts out.”
In REAL life, every time you put another cube to the wall of ice, YOU STOP ANOTHER PERCENT LIGHT EVER EVER REACHING and WARMING the “BULB” part
of that ERRONEOUSLY represented,
analogy.
Ok Bob? This should be a lot clearer to you now that I’ve said it this way Bob. Basically I just explained how it started, with Joseph discussing the Trenberth Keel fake energy budget,
claiming that a hundred watt bulb was emitting a hundred twenty, because of the glass shell.
And that IS
that IS what the Trenberth Keel OBVIOUSLY Conservation of Energy violating FAKE
Earth energy budget chart, DOES.
And that’s EXACTLY what Joseph said it did.
Then one of the magic gassers just added the ice cube and explained that the colder ice cube, ultimately out there at some point, would keep the bulb from cooling down as fast, as it fed that bulb energy.
But the analogy is fake. They claim they’re discussing the same thing and they’re not.
JOSEPH discussed WATTS IN must EQUAL WATTS OUT.
THEY discussed ADDING the ICE without ALSO counting the ACTUAL LOSSES
the GHGs the ice represents, CAUSE, because in a PROPERLY laid out analogy,
As the ICE is ADDED
fewer and fewer WATTS of ENERGY
WARM the ‘bulb’ side of the analogy.
See where the inversion is happening? That’s the way it always is. There’s an inversion of what’s actually happening.
Peace hippies
don’t take improperly refractive thermodynamic nickels. Every thermodynamic nickel and dime they throw at you,
you better turn over and look for the inversion cause there’s gonna be one and I just explained to you the inversion in this one.
What’s wrong with the Analogy Bob?
This is a test question Bob,
what is wrong with claiming
more insulation
warms the earth?
The fact that more insulation
cools the Earth, Bob.
That’s what’s wrong.
I think that fake analogy was Anthony Watts’ Bob so watch your step over there, he’ll come out and act mentally ill and insult you and stop posting up anything you say there.
In other words Bob, I was trying to get this phrase condensed down right,
Joseph said Watts in must always be Watts out.
The ice analogy is the claim, that
as the ICE appears in the ANALOGY
THE same number of WATTS appear, to warm that BULB.
That’s where the fakery in the so-called analogy lies.
They’re DENYING that EVERY time more ICE appears
LESS LIGHT warms that bulb.
Joseph’s illustration with the bulb was “Watts in must = Watts out,”
Theirs was to then present the ice and HIDE the fact that –
ONCE the ICE APPEARS in the ILLUSTRATION
ALL ENERGY to the bulb
must come in THROUGH the ice.
And be REDUCED, ice cube by ice cube, ppm by ppm,
until you have the world’s current situation.
The icy insulation is stopping 22% otherwise available energy from the sun,
from ever reaching the Earth to warm it.
I guess it’s kind of appropriate that stupid m****f*****r used a green house gas as the ice cube, huh.
Because in actual fact – you see on those charts, all that region which is in the visible range?
Those two little NEEDLE size spikes for O3 aren’t all that visible light. Visible light is white. ICE
is the white substance, more than less, reducing all that visible light to the surface.
How ironic. The inversion Robert is that they don’t acknowledge that in the REAL facsimile representing the Earth/Sun/Atmosphere complex,
as soon as they add the ice,
they’re obligated to start trimming the amount of energy or light reaching the surface of that bulb, or obviously – Earth.
Because in the REAL facsimile or analogy representing those relationships, the ice being there, DOES change the number of watts’ energy to the surface of that “bulb” or again – Earth.
What does that tell you about the low down greasiness of Anthony Watts and his ilk, Robert?
Anthony Watts makes his NAME as “Old honest john sellin’ lecktrick cars onEbaby, I woan’t nevur lye two yew.”
He then prints that FAKE ANALOGY where he INTENTIONALLY NEGLECTS to REMIND ANYONE in his AUDIENCE or whoever the _________ did this – that – HE KNOWS he’s INVERTING where the ENERGY COMES FROM.
He knows as soon as the ice appears it MUST REDUCE WATTAGE TO THE BULB, for his LYING FRAUD to be STRAIGHT.
He JUST doesn’t CARE, he’s IN the BUSINESS of SCAMMING people and if I recall it was Anthony Watts who came up with that shit and then Spencer ran with it, but maybe, it’s the other way around. I can’t remember right now but Watts is RIGHT in the middle of that scam. He INVENTED that scam I thought but maybe it was Spencer who MENTIONED it first, then Watts decided to run with the scam.
That’s what you’re dealing with in Watts. The man who faked that shit to the world, and his side kick Eschenbach with those twin shells of stupid, emitting more than THEY could, JUST LIKE TRENBERTH’S F***D UP Conservation of Energy violating, “Earth Energy Budget.”
Sorry for coming off lecturing Bob, when you’re talking about this you’re talking inversion fraud. Different type frauds have different signatures but the never-ending inversions, leading immediately and simultaneously to Conservation of Energy violations, are * * THE SIGNATURE * * in inversion fraud.
THE signature. Not another one sometimes, and this one sometimes, they are THE signature
of inversion fraud. Sometimes inversion frauds are mixed with other type frauds. But inversion fraud, pure inversion fraud, leads, to your uncovering inversion, after inversion, after inversion, because once committed to making sure some end result is opposite,
every time the thieves go to work again their “work” is to invert something again,
and make THAT – point the same INVERTED direction as the FIRST one.
So whenever you are having a problem with Magical Gaissines dun made a coald bathuh heedur,
look around.
There is an inversion,
right under your nose.
This is the nature of this kinda fraud.
Inversion, after inversion, after inversion.
Geran,
On the 6.36 AM on 24/062018 you responded;
Steve, you seem to be saying a cold surface would stop emitting, if a warmer surface started “shining” on it. That may be hard to prove, since all surfaces emit based on their temperature, not their environment…….
That first paragraph is, in my opinion, where your wrong-thinking is revealed. The sophists have corrupted your thinking. In truth, a blackbody surface will emit power (actually it’s radiant exitance) according to the formula P= σ T^4 only when emitting into a 0K environment. At all other times, only that warmer (at T1) blackbody surface will emit towards the cooler (at T2) object at: P = σ (T1^4 – T2^4). That’s what Joe’s previous two articles were all about, go back and read them if you don’t believe me. However, it took me this long to understand the full consequences of what he’s been trying to tell us in those articles (and his other articles about parallel planes), so don’t be offended.
When T1 and T2 are identical i.e. they are in thermodynamic equilibrium, both surfaces emit at only half power towards each other, in order to satisfy the radiant power density requirements at each surface. Think of this as the Dr. Josef Stefan’s ‘blackbody cavity’ scenario.
When both surfaces are not in thermodynamic equilibrium but are in the steady-state i.e. they’re not at the same temperature but their respective temperatures are no longer changing, only the hotter of the two objects will be emitting photons towards the other. The radiant energy density gradient between the two bodies will ensure that this is so.
As the Earth is not a blackbody (and probably not a perfect Graybody either), the Earth’s radiant exitance (found by P= ɛ σ T^4 ) will go into the void of space only from it’s Sunless (and moonless) surface (and even that calculation will be compromised by the fact that the Earth’s atmosphere will affect the surface temperature and hence actual the radiant exitance value also).
So, that’s back-radiation sorted – it just doesn’t exist.
The subject of “Delayed Cooling” is another matter and, like Robert, I remain uncertain (but have formulated my current thinking during the course of writing this response). I have already said, the S-B law only applies when the blackbody is radiating into a 0K environment, and this can be represented as P = σ (T1^4 – 0K). When a blackbody radiating towards an object that is warmer (at T2)than 0K, is represented as P= σ (T1^4 – T2^4).
I have no doubt that a blackbody (without any internal power source) will cool more slowly if surround by ice than it would if surrounded by a 0K environment.
For a blackbody with it’s own internal power source, I am inclined (even compelled) to believe that surrounding it with an effective insulator will cause the blackbody to continue to raise it’s own temperature. I think this because the emissivity of the blackbody may be “1” but the absorptivity of the other (non-blackbody) object is less than “1”.
I’m thinking out loud now when I say that the cumulative “transference factor” (my own phrase) might be = Emissivity of warmer object x Absorptivity of cooler object.
So when a Blackbody, B , (of emissivity=1) with it’s own internal power source is entirely surrounded by a Non-blackbody, N (of absorptivity=0.5) then, at the surface of the Blackbody, the radiant exitance (P OUT), will be;
P OUT = Emissivity B x Absorptivity N σ (TB^4 – TN^4).
Now, if POUT is less than the power being generated by the internal power source within the Blackbody then this ‘excess’ power being generated within the Blackbody can only be used to further increase the temperature of the Blackbody. By this manner, the Blackbody (and the receiving surface of the non-blackbody object also) will continue to become hotter until such a temperature is reached within the Blackbody that the power radiated from the other surfaces of the Non-blackbody object are able to radiate all of the power being generated by the internal power source of the Blackbody. At such a time, the steady-state will have been reached and neither the Blackbody or the Non-blackbody object will increase in temperature any further.
So, yes, I currently think that there is such a thing as “Delayed cooling causes increased warming”.
That said, I do not believe that the LWIR-active gas molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere act as in insulator – they merely absorb those photons which have been emitted from the Earth’s surface and which have very particular wavelengths (that carry the exact amount of energy that’s required by that molecule to achieve a dipole state change) and, subsequently, these LWIR-active molecules with a higher dipole state, spontaneously emit photons with the exact same wavelength. However, because of the higher radiant energy density that exists immediately above the surface of the Earth (with it’s radiant energy density gradient extending well above the surface of the Earth), these photons will not be emitted from the LWIR-active molecules towards the Earth (because the radiant energy density at the Earth’s surface already represents the actual temperature at that location). This means that these photons can only go away from the Earth’s surface (and away from the Sun) towards the void of space.
……And as Allen Eltor say’s, these LWIR-active molecules are doing the very same thing on those absorbed LWIR-photons that were emitted by our Sun, eight minutes earlier. When these LWIR-active molecules with a higher dipole state do, spontenously, emit a photon, that photon can only go in a direction towards the void of space i.e. not towards the Earth or towards the Sun.
arfurbryant,
I understand everything that you are saying, but what I am trying to get as is a framing of the argument that specifically addresses the “slowed cooling” approach.
The “slowed cooling” approach seems to require an energy focus, and that’s why my focus is such.
I know it’s a matter of energy intensity. The “slowed cooling” claim requires that a lower-intensity energy encounter a higher-intensity energy and “slow down” that higher-intensity energy, to somehow causes a build up of extra energy from the same energy, in order to cause the higher-intensity energy to be even higher-intensity than before to raise the temperature.
“Slowed cooling” means that a lower-intensity energy can cause a higher-intensity energy to compress itself into an even higher intensity energy, … which is absurd, because energy does not work like that, right ?
it’s both energy and temperature etc.
Remember guys, don’t miss the forest for the trees.
Their INPUT in their RGHE diagrams is -18C. What does “slowed down cooling” from -18C even mean? That the temperature should drop more slowly away from -18C? That doesn’t get us to +15C!
You see all the myriad sophistry about all this? You can’t even have a rational discussion about it AT ALL, because everywhere there are things which don’t make any sense.
The sophist task they have set up is for us to argue when less can be more, when low can be high, when cold can be hot, when cooling can be warming, when 2 can be 3, etc. They very act of engaging in it is to lose!
So we talk about the effects of slowed cooling…but then dismiss that the input is -18C, and so how does slowed cooling have any relevance at all to +15C?!
With EM thermal radiation, the ONLY way to “slow emission” is to reduce the emissivity, i.e. the emitting ability, of the surface emitting. ***CO2 in the atmosphere does not change the emissivity of the ground surface.*** And secondly, CO2 is the atmosphere is said to increase the emissivity of the atmosphere which therefore would make the atmosphere cooler, not warmer, and again, this has no effect on surface emissivity and hence no effect on the surface.
From the movie War Games: “The only solution is not to play.”
At least, not to play on their terms. Their terms are scientific sophistry, clever and subtle pseudoscience, etc.
The terms of reality, however, are:
1) It is only the emissivity of a surface which determines its temperature for a given or required rate of thermal emission.
2) CO2 in the atmosphere does not change the emissivity of the ground.
3) CO2 in the atmosphere is claimed to increase atmospheric emissivity, and this should make the atmosphere cool, not warm, and in any case still has no effect on surface emissivity.
4) Their RGHE diagrams are flat Earth physics with -18C of warming potential from the Sun.
SUN is external power source.
EARTH has no internal power source (of relevance here). We assume SUN is only power source.
SUN warms EARTH surface.
EARTH surface warms EARTH atmosphere.
Energy gradient exists between Earth SURFACE and Earth ATMOSPHERE.
Higher-intensity SURFACE energy radiates towards lower-intensity ATMOSPHERE energy.
Energy gradient is at set intensity, where greater-energy-intensity always grades into lower-energy-intensity, from warmer surface to cooler atmosphere.
More lower-intensity energy from ATMOSPHERE to SURFACE does not change GRADIENT — gradient still progresses from surface to atmosphere, from warmer to cooler. Is there, in fact, ANY lower-intensity-energy coming back towards (and “through”) the higher-intensity energy? Does “back radiation” even exist, in the face of an energy gradient moving from warm to cool? Radiation from cooler atmosphere certainly exists, but does it exist ABSOLUTELY, or is its existence RELATIVE to energy field under consideration?
… just thinking out loud here, and now I’ve stumped myself. Does “back radiation” even exist ? If no, then how can everything in the universe still radiate?
No entity is isolated. Each entity stands in an energy relationship to every other entity. Entities are NOT passive, NOT isolated, NOT subject to passive, isolated characterizations. “Back radiation” is a false concept based on a passive, isolated point of view, … maybe ?
I sort of like to “play”, so that I can defeat stupidity using the same pieces of their game to do so.
I’m glad that JP made a guest appearance, to chime in, which probably strengthens the best argument against “slowed” or “delayed” cooling, which is that CO2 cannot change the Earth-surface emissivity, and this is what would be required.
“Slowed cooling” would have to INCREASE surface emissivity, to create more energy intensity out of nowhere.
“Slowed cooling” would have to transform the physical constitution of the surface, in order to accomplish this magic.
“Slowed cooling” would (metaphorically) have to change lead into gold.
It just tries to steal lead’s energy instead of actually turning lead into gold.
Steve it’s not true, that photons can’t approach higher energy emitters. This is why if you have a rock with a battery and some heat wire embedded in it,
if you ship the rock in a sealed dark box to Antarctica and to Phoenix,
the rock will always be warmer than it’s surroundings, but it’s own, final radiating temperature,
is directly dependent on how much energy the surrounding field of energy lets leak out.
Energy restrains the flow of energy when the two approach and one or the other – can’t get out of the way.
I’m not trying to be impolite but you’re actually kinda misrepresenting what I said quite a bit there.
All of you who believe, it is not possible for cooler photons to fly toward and strike higher energy objects to set the final radiating temperature of the WARMER object, need to ask yourself why you don’t have an answer for this Antarctica/Phoenix in the dark box question, because it’s a FOUNDATIONAL physics in thermodynamics question: what makes light, leak out of a rock?
The answer is always and ONLY – one thing. Less light in some direction or another.
Wherever there is a lower concentration field of light,
the light will leak until there is no longer an unequal gradient.
Now. How can this be? Free radiant light streams’ photons interact in a frictionless way, until absolutely all other potential-equations have been solved; in other words they – in a frictionless way, rather than deflect any more than absolutely demanded – they re-orientate their spin in relation to each other as they pass each other, to accomodate each others’ total electromagnetic potential, and in this case we’re talking fundamentally about spin.
I might have said one time before that these particles in acting as idealized spheres, interact with each other in ways that show pretty clearly that they index with each other as if they are spinning, spherical coil springs. With these mathematics you can make this light do some fantastic shit. One of the MAIN ones is pinging around a room, yet seeming to remain in order to people who use vision.
But: when light is entangled with an electron the capacity to re-index in accordance with the incoming free photons so they can fit very closely together, with minimum rebound, is curtailed to the point of effectively just being stopped: and the trapped light, the electromagnetic energy in matter, causes the incoming free photons to rebound off the surface and leave. But during those instants when a flow of incoming photons is striking a surface, their photonic spin potential, impedes the travel outward of photons that would be leaking off into space.
This is called emissions inhibition, and it’s why all the light in a rock in phoenix, leaks out of it, till it’s average held light quantity, is about identical to the concentration of the field of light glowing off the inside of the box in Antarctica.
Proof of Conservation of Energy obeying inhibition of emissions, is THE mechanism, that makes the temperature of a rock in Antarctica be what it is there, vs what it’s temperature is in Phoenix.
When light is bound to electrons it can’t get out of the way of incoming photons so the incoming photons rebound. But the photons trying to leave, the photons that would normally be leaking off into a lower field-energy region – in colliding with and deflecting the incoming photons, they themselves are held back by collision with the incoming energy field.
So if you say these photons from lower energy emitters aren’t going toward and striking the higher energy emitters – and, adjusting the higher energy emitter’s temperature of emissions upward – you’re depriving yourself of how to properly answer the question, “why is a rock in antarctica cold, and one in phoenix hot, even though they’re both in dark boxes?”
Well – for my illustration our rocks might need to have batteries and thermal wire embedded. That way we can explain the higher temperature rock in both Antarctica and Phoenix, having it’s temperature of emissions ultimately set at the sum temperature of emissions from the insides of those glowing boxes.
I don’t mean to be like… Me, me, ME! but in not having the various ins and outs of photons interacting with each other – you’re losing your capacity to explain very simple things, through very well described, documented and known, mechanisms.
That’s why i bring that up, it’s just a very short hop and a skip and someone is asking you about the ambient temperature sum of all incoming radiation, actually setting emissions temperature of objects within electromagnetic fields.
Peace
I chopped that last post up a little sorry about that.
Steve, a couple of things come to mind. You referred to two equations:
A) P= σ T^4
B) P = σ (T1^4 – T2^4)
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law provides the equation P/A = σ T^4. “P/A” is, of course, the “power flux”. You are attempting to use your equation A, for the S/B equation.
Your equation B is NOT the S/B equation. It is a special application of the S/B equation.
It seems you are believing equation B is the “Law”, not equation A. Objects emit based on their temperature, just as the Law indicates. Equation B only indicates the heat transfer, under the ideal conditions of the equation.
Maybe this will make it clearer than I can:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Hi Robert,
[“The “slowed cooling” claim requires that a lower-intensity energy encounter a higher-intensity energy and “slow down” that higher-intensity energy, to somehow causes a build up of extra energy from the same energy, in order to cause the higher-intensity energy to be even higher-intensity than before to raise the temperature. “Slowed cooling” means that a lower-intensity energy can cause a higher-intensity energy to compress itself into an even higher intensity energy, … which is absurd, because energy does not work like that, right ?”]
Right, its absurd. But its absurd because its based on a fundamental misconception of the interaction of radiation and matter and radiation with radiation. Lower energy photos cannot slow down the higher energy photons. There is NO interaction. All that can happen is: if the temperature difference between Hot body and Cold body is reduced (such as warming the atmosphere for whatever reason) then the rate of cooling will slow. Thus the difference between the average intensity of energy in the photons of both bodies will be less. Thus the rate of cooling will be less. But this is all predicated upon the false ASSUMPTION that CO2 can MEASURABLY warm the atmosphere. There is no false build up of energy in the Earth’s surface molecules. The back-radiation is irrelevant as far as the surface is concerned.
Anyway, that’s how I see it. Joe is right about the sophistry of the warmest argument. Any argument based on a false assumption is nugatory!
Regards
Firstly, a full apology to Allen Eltor. Having re-read my paragraph that justifiably caused some offence, I can see that I inadvertently attributed my own words to Allen. On reflection I should not have used Allen’s name in my submission but, at the risking of digging myself into an even deeper hole, perhaps I could have better phrased what I meant to say as: “And as Allen Eltor say’s, these LWIR-active molecules are also interfering with the passage of LWIR-photons emitted from the Sun which were otherwise bound for the surface of the Earth”. As to what those LWIR-molecules do with these LWIR-photons was entirely my own thoughts and words.
Secondly, in response to Geran, I have no argument with the contents of the link which you kindly provided except that (a) I believe that the S-B law only applies to a blackbody when radiating towards a 0K environment (the “0K environment” bit is the most important condition and should not be omitted but it often is, as was the case in your link). (b) The other contents of the link show that when that blackbody is emitting towards an environment which is NOT at 0K, the radiant exitance (in Watts/m^2) of that blackbody towards that other object = σ (T1^4 – T2^4), albeit that the contents of the link used Power (in Watts) = A σ (T1^4 – T2^4), rather than radiant exitance and (c) my only other criticism on the content of that link is the inclusion of that very dodgy word “net” in the expression “net radiation lost”. It’s placed there to imply that radiant exitance is flowing in both directions but in one direction (from warmer to cooler) the flow is greater. As said previously, I believe that, once in the steady-state, radiant exitance is only ever flowing in one direction. Nothing is being emitted from the surface of the cooler object that’s receiving photons from the warmer object. To conclude the point that I was trying to make is that the radiant exitance is NOT dependant only upon the temperature of the blackbody. Instead, the radiant exitance from an object is determined by it’s own temperature and the temperature of it’s environment into which it is emitting. That said, what IS determined only by it’s own temperature i.e. not influenced by the environment, is the radiant energy density (J / m^3) = a T^4 found immediately above the surface of an object that is in thermodynamic equilibrium. By ensuring that both Stefan’s law of radiant energy density and the heat transfer equation is respected, it remains my belief that heat (and radiant exitance and thereby photons) only goes from the warmer to the cooler object. And that is why back-radiation does not exist.
Allen Eltor’s explanation of photon / atom interaction will take me more than a few reading sessions (and I thought I’d better not delay my apology).
Finally, I will have to sleep on Joe’s statement that only the emissivity of the radiating object can further influence it’s temperature. My ‘off of the top of my head’ idea that it could be influenced by factoring both the emissivity of the emitter and the absorptivity of the receiver seemed reasonable – I want to do a bit more digging on this before I discard my brainwave idea.
In the meantime, thanks for helping me think through all this extra stuff.
Steve, it appears you have formulated your beliefs based on denial of the S/B Law. You do not believe that an object emits based on its temperature. You believe the S/B Law is only valid if the object is emitting to 0 K.
Well, I admire your skepticism of established science. It would be great if more people were not intimidated by institutions. Skepticism is good. But, at some point, you need to understand that there is “real science”. IOW, there is science that can be demonstrated, reproduced, and, if necessary, falsified.
The S/B Law has a mathematical derivation. It has been verified, again and again, in over 100 years of lab testing. You can even perform crude testing yourself.
So, being a true skeptic, sometimes you have to be skeptical of your own beliefs.
As I indicated upthread, the best way to fight the “back-radiation” nonsense is at the absorber, not the emitter. The atmosphere is definitely emitting photons. No question. Some of those photons head toward the surface. But, can they cause ANY warming? Not according to “real science”.
Yep, it’s “established science” which has got us where we are.
As succinctly as I can be;
For the very special case when a blackbody is emitting into a 0K environment;
= A σ T^4
Radiant Exitance from the Blackbody (W/m^2) = σ T^4
And when radiating to another object with the same parallel plane area, this can be represented as Power (or heat)
When the Blackbody is radiating to any other environment warmer than 0K;
= A σ (T1^4 – T2^4)
Radiant Exitance from the Blackbody (W/m^2) = σ (T1^4 – T2^4)
And when radiating to another object with the same parallel plane area, this can be Represented as Power (or heat)
When a graybody is radiating to any other environment warmer than 0K;
= ɛ A σ (T1^4 – T2^4)
Radiant Exitance from the graybody (W/m^2) = ɛ σ (T1^4 – T2^4)
And when radiating to another object with the same parallel plane area and same emissivity, this can be Represented as Power (or heat)
When a graybody is radiating to any other environment warmer than 0K with with a different emissivity;
= ɛ1 A1 σT1^4 – ɛ2 A2 σT2^4)
Radiant Exitance from the graybody (W/m^2) = ɛ1 σ T1^4 – ɛ2 σ T2^4)
And when radiating to another object with a different parallel plane area and different emissivity, this can be Represented as Power (or heat)
When a graybody is radiating to any other environment warmer than 0K with with a different emissivity;
= ɛ1 A1 σT1^4 – ɛ2 A2 σT2^4).
Radiant Exitance from the graybody (W/m^2) = ɛ1 σ T1^4 – ɛ2 σ T2^4
And when radiating to another greybody object with a different parallel plane area and different emissivity, this can be represented as Power (or heat)
Now, here’s the thing (and I know it contradicts what Joe has just said, but that’s a good thing – because it means I’m not saying anything that he is currently working on), if the emissivity of the receiving (cooler object) does influence the ability of the emitter to emit towards the receiver, and if the absorptivity of the receiving object is not the same as it’s emissivity (I don’t know the Greek symbol for absorptivity, but let’s call it α) then;
Power (it’s heat) from 1 to 2
= ɛ1 A1 σT1^4 – α2 A2 σT2^4
So if the warmer object is a blackbody, it will have an emissivity of 1 and if the cooler object is constructed of an insulating material it will have a low absorptivity value of say, 0.25. The effect of this would be that for the same power value to be transmitted from the warmer object to the cooler object, the temperature of the warmer object would need to be higher than it would otherwise need to be if it were emitting towards an object with a higher absorptivity value.
If the emitter has it’s own internal power source (such as in the steel greenhouse thought experiment), then the emitter would not be able to radiate the all of the power it is constantly generating until it has reached the hotter temperature required to ensure that it’s radiant exitance can ‘penetrate’ into the surface of the insulator.
Well, that’s my thinking into this topic – if I’m wrong, it’s all my thinking (no harm done).
The serious problem that I must declare here, is that when I say that an insulator has a low absorptivity value, my equation produces a result that says that the term produced by object 2 becomes smaller, which results in the Power value becoming greater – suggesting that the power flowing from object 1 to object 2 becomes greater as the absorptivity of object 2 is further reduced. This doesn’t make sense. Does an insulator have a lower absorptivity value? Or does an insulator have an absorptivity value greater than 1?
Perhaps the whole concept is bollocks after all (thank you Geran).
Thank you for taking note of what I said Steve, it’s important, because when it’s not clear what’s making something happen, “It looks like these photons don’t emit in that direction”
robs you of the capacity to explain a resistor giving off ten watts. Or a body,
giving off however many, as heat.
It’s warmer, by several watts,
than the sum of the ambient light energy it’s being bathed by.
Light energy, that is ultimately lower in overall frequency,
emitted by an object demonstrably cooler than itself,
fixes the temperature of that object, by stopping energy
from leaking out. That’s why the temperature of your rock
is the same temperature as it’s surroundings,
in Antarctica, or Phoenix.
And energy glowed off, added by you, in either place,
is glowed off starting from ambient temperature.
When the magic gas scam first became really publicized, a lot of people might not be able to remember, Trenberth-Kiel or whatever Keel/Kiel’s name is- had released this
Ri-BLANKING-DiCULouS chart, called the “Earth Energy Budget”
with a buncha shit supposedly counted up,
that had the earth glowing off, like.. a FULL 120% more
than it was taking in. 2-1/2 times, or some INSANELY stupid shit.
I don’t remember, I know the # I’m giving is wrong.
EVERY BODY would point out to these f***g HICKS that
a COLD OBJECT, – the Atmosphere
CONDUCTION CHILLING AN OBJECT,
CAN’T MAKE the WARMER OBJECT,
WARMER.
Two, three, or even more sophists,
starting with Greaseball Fraud Watts & Spencer,
promptly drew up radiation-only analogies and pretended to have defeated the claim,
that a cold nitrogen bath’s components, still far cooler than what they just chilled,
can’t be making the object warmer.
This was all in the heyday when FAT TONY started DOING what the OTHER CON MEN DID and SUMMARILY BANNING ANYONE, who MENTIONS ANY of these FUNDAMENTAL THERMODYNAMICS VIOLATIONS, claiming “WEA’V DUN DEA BUNCKED AWL THAT.”
Con man Watts, LED the CHARGE to DOING that: BANNING YOU for BRINGING UP the LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS in RELATION to ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY and Atmospheric Radiation Chemistry.
This really sorta spawned an overnight global industry, of drawing up FAKED experiments
and creating FAKE analogies – then declaring victory –
then when ANYONE showed up pointing out how DAFT it was
promptly BANNING them with the threat to ALL that
“THESE KIND make me most DISGUSTED of ALL,
the ONES DENYING the BASICK SIGNTS iz SOWND!
THis Heeyur playse is SiGNTSiE,
and DON’T NuNNa YEW, FerGiT iT!”
Magic Gas Watts and Mentally Ill Eschenback spearheaded doing this to people as a FUNDAMENTAL way of interacting with EVERYONE who disagreed with them
just as the GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES had been doing.
This is inversion fraud. There is no complexity to it whatever. Inversion fraud is one of the most instantly discrediting types of fraud to propagate,
which is why it’s proponents invented the industry-defining meme of banning people
then talking about them as if they deserved to be murdered,
for arguing with the fraud’s believers.
It was indefensible, it is indefensible, and it is only because it is government crime on a gigantic, world robbing scale
that it can’t be managed and eradicated more effectively.
When I said it’s indefensible I didn’t mean morally, I mean it’s utterly unable to be defended
if people simply use the sound, perfectly working arguments you’d teach a 7 year old.
Certainly a 12 year old. This scam is inversion fraud.
Inversion fraud can be trained against very swiftly,
because it violates intuitive thermodynamics.
The *SIMPLEST of tests,
IMMEDIATELY prove it
to be TOTAL fraud,
ONCE you teach
a CHILD
that
1% less in,
=
1% less out.
It’s over. The 7 year old has spoken, let’s go get some lunch.
It’s over when the active mind investigating,
realizes it’s a claim that 1% less light in, =
that 1% that never went in, coming out,
then whatever % equates to warming,
the entire nitrogen bath
33 degrees leaving
as a bonus.
You could teach a bright 12 year old with a wrestler’s mohawk to stand down his school Principal,
if you gave the kid some fairly intensive “challenges with answers”lessons
and he knew he was gonna win some kinda bad-ass prize
for winning the debate.
It’s physics fraud the world’s very very top level environmental “scientists”
were using, to steal millions in computer grants fraud,
all the while, screaming that “Oh, nobody will LISTEN!”
Al Gore made everybody take a look.
Al Gore realized people took a look
and started threatening people
in the US and England and Germany
that they would be arrested for “interrupting those “scientists”.
After he invented the “Carbon Sin Certificate of Forgiveness”
where you PAID him MONEY for USING FIRE.
Sound reasonable? You use fire.
You pay Al Gore ”sin tax.”
He floats this to the world’s government education institutions
and they lap this sh** up
like it’s a high vitamin-content
colloidal-minerals enema, and supplement drink.
I grant to every one of you – it’s a grand scheme.
It involved scientists scamming grants in more than 6 countries.
It only involved scientists running the scam taking OVER
the entire climate bureaus of 6 countries.
-= I still tell every single person who ever reads this, =-
the instant you fail to accept the simple math
and the invariant physics, of a cold bath,
washing a light warmed rock,
with some cold refrigerants in it,
blocking 22% of the light
warming that rock –
I don’t care,
if God Her Self
came down, and told you, “Go tell everybody that sh**’s real.”
The instant she tried to tell you a magical gaissiness,
dun made a cold bath uh HeeDur: that b**ch is lyin.
She’s lyin,
and she’s been hanging out
with government employees.
And she’s been hanging out
with criminal scammers
and zit-bots so stupid
they believe that shit’s
possibly real.
That maybe
more light blocking refrigerants,
letting less light warm a rock,
make more light warm a rock,
every time more refrigerants,
make less light warm the rock.
Ya’W.
I waded in with a question about NET energy transfer wonder how “Net” can be meaningful when the transfer of energy is one way from high to low, hot to cold. Since there was NO increase of energy in the system, how can the concept of “NET” work at all?
Here is my question and the answer the confused dude made:
How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.?
His answer:
Because radiation doesn’t flow “in ONE direction from high to low”.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-heart-of-the-agw-premise-fails-empirical-review.693398/page-2#post-20269515
The previous post I asked that question on what someone stated that makes no sense to me:
“Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-heart-of-the-agw-premise-fails-empirical-review.693398/page-2#post-20269344
They seem to forget that a CLOSED system can’t have a net transfer because no additional energy was added to the mix, nothing added means nothing gained.
Oh my these people are really confused about NET radiation
One dude keeps insisting that Heat is energy itself, quoting him: “All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-heart-of-the-agw-premise-fails-empirical-review.693398/page-3#post-20271522
The rest of his post is too foggy for me.
Heck the thread itself is a howler:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-heart-of-the-agw-premise-fails-empirical-review.693398/
What you guys think?
How hard is it to get banned ST from there.
I feel like reaching into the screen and ripping his head off worthless trolling b@stards.
How much lea-way is there.
Gary, even a couple Moderators there who are skeptics have been harsh on warmists loons.
Have you read the thread where some name calling flies around a lot?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-heart-of-the-agw-premise-fails-empirical-review.693398/
I asked a question at post 21 that has NEVER been decently answered, my question:
“What creates the “net” set up?”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-heart-of-the-agw-premise-fails-empirical-review.693398/page-2#post-20264675
There are now 157 comments, I dropped out a while ago not getting a decent answer to a simple question.
I went over there and spent a few hours humiliating the f**** out of all of them, calling them a buncha shoe-selling-at-the-mall, booger-eating b**tches, and dared them to testify of their church to me, but.. apparently noses have to be cleaned, and fingernails have to be scanned for edible boogers, and they’re busy.
Good call on finding the nests of booger-eaters. They like to hide where people can’t see them talking about how the magicalness of the gaissiness dun…yew no..
turn’t thair lives arownd.
and
turn’t thim own,
two
clymit a
wearniss.
Everytime you go somewhere remote: abandoned lots, etc
and pick up a board to reveal a nest of them,
they’re always all laying squished together as close as they can get,
exuding that slime,
sticking their fingers in each others’ noses and digging out the boogers
to eat them
with that ecstasy on their faces and bodies, only thinking about
powurful backerdistical glimmerinz,
turnin a cold nitrogen bath into uh…magical heedur…”
while chewing each others’ boogers,
can bring.
Little vampyres of science, sleeping in rotting logs, coming out at night stuffing their mouths with earthworms and grubs they can see clearly,
what with all those blinding backerdisticalisms glimurfyin awf thim grean howsienesses,
a magic gas barking booger-eating zombie can find their fill in the night woods,
stuffing their guts til dawn when they go hide awhile in their logs,
laying up together in the quasi-catatonic repose of true
booger, worm, and grub fed haters of science,
to change into Academic employees
with the rising steam, and sun
and into brainless zombies
who worship their feet,
and sell them shoes,
in cheap stores in
strip malls,
globally.
“It’s REEYuL, PurFeSSuR BaCKuRD, an’ yew have CHaNGeD mY LyFE! I yewsd two be uhfrayed uv the signtsie ness,
of the magicalness,
of the gaissiness,
but thin I read yoar papur,
bowt how thim backerdisms
is evur hoddur’n’hoddurn’ an abowt
awl that anger in the sky. And in yoar heart.
Fur the fearful backurdistical backlash, uv buyin our fire,
frum the rawng, inturnashinul fire peddlin’ conglomurates & whatnot.
I wint and I burnt myself on the stove, jist two pruve i hav climit spirit, then i
got me uh job in the mawl
whur I can share the good news, abowt thuh induv thuh werld,
and the backerdisms an’ evurthang, makin the cold nitrogen heedur
hoddurn’hoddur,
cawse the sky is mad,”
…looks down at floor in humility.. “Wayle, Purfessur Backurd thank yew fur lettin me touche yoar feets and as thay say in climitologie. “That’ll be 32.59 Sir, and thank yew”
“fur shoppin at Grean House uv Shewz.”
Yaw.
@Sunsettommy, @Allen,
Thanks guys! … I hopped over and took a peek at your conversations with the warming retards. I can’t stop laughing. Thanks for making my day!
There seems to be a difference of belief about whether or not a single molecule can have a “temperature”.
This seems like a gray area, from what little I’ve been reading in a couple of other forums. Generally, the answer seems to be that a single molecule cannot have a temperature, but then I see this general get put aside, when a molecule of many atoms is under consideration.
Is there great confusion about this question, and is there one right answer ?
Robert, a single molecule would have a “temperature”, since it has internal energy and likely, kinetic energy. But, “temperature” is a “manmade” measurement. We just don’t have the technology to measure temperature at the molecular level. You need enough mass so that all of the molecular energies can have a meaningful average.
Basically what Geran says Robert. Gases most of all, actually are thought of as doing their intake and hand-off and expulsion of light, as individual molecules, their very definition involving the concept that they are NOT physically tied to any other entity in any physical way.
So there’s that to reflect on.There’s nothing a plural regime can do, that an individual molecule can’t do, and isn’t already doing. That really is one of the foundational parameters you memorize about gases.
Another indicator is that when you measure tiny quantities’ temperature, gas theory never really invokes some substantive change in the nature of your analyses, to account for some significant alteration in how the gases are responding. Your instruments finally just get too insensitive.
hay Yaw! yaW redy for sum climit fun?
It don’t hardly git no funner on a frydie night,
than a GOOD’ oL GAME, of
* * *-=WHAT DUZ it GiT??!!!=-* * *
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-heart-of-the-agw-premise-fails-empirical-review.693398/page-43#post-20311464
we could sit around all night drinking coolaid with extra sugar we let turn to wine in by puttin it in the closet for a couple of weeks in the dark,
somebody could break out their acoustic guitar,
and we could sing along songs about climate injustice and doin the right thing, like quittin our jobs and camping out in front of grandma’s 401K manager’s place, and breaking all the windows in his car and covering it weth eggs,
and then play rousing game after rousing game of
* * *-=WHAT DUZ it GiT??!!!=-* * *
till the early dawn reminds us, we have to get high and take a nap, cause the sun’s up.
It don’t hardly git moar bonding and nurturing than playing
* * *-=WHAT DUZ it GiT??!!!=-* * *
with family and beloved friends, from many walks of life.
Yaw.
We should all put our money together, and buy a used van and convert it so we could all live in it together with our girlfriends and boyfriends and dog friends and cat friends,
and drive around the country, to you know, like,
all the relevant places? LA, New York, San Francisco, you know,
and like… meet people on the street, and see if they would play a game of
* * *-=WHAT DUZ it GiT??!!!=-* * *
on our GoPro and we could have a youtube channel of world climate healing where we show ourselves meeting complete strangers and enjoy feeling good about playing, you know,
* * *-=WHAT DUZ it GiT??!!!=-* * *
And then after a while when our youtube channel has like a billion views,
and money’s not a problem,
we could all move in together, and if one of our girlfriends has somebody else’s baby, cause we were all sluttiin around while we were camped out for climate injustice,
we could all just raise the babys without needing to know who their daddies are, and teach them how to play
* * *-=WHAT DUZ it GiT??!!!=-* * *
so they can grow up being climate revolutionaries too. And just like.. keep goin. See where it goes.
it’s better than sitting around letting those deplorables darken science saying a cold nitrogen bath isn’t a heater.
WHAT ELSE WOULD A COLD NITROGEN BATH BE but a HEATER?????
WHAT ELSE?
SHAKING my CLIMATE Justice fighting, EXHAUSTED HEAD… they just keep coming, with the denials.
“A cold nitrogen bath isn’t a heater, a cold nitrogen bath isn’t a heater,”
where do these people GET this sh**? I’m so SICK of it!
Anyway, I’m gonna choke myself for climate justice for awhile, it feels good to know the climate is hurting and that I’m hurting too. “aaaAHRGHRRGH!!” That’s me choking if you couldn’t tell.
When I hurt myself I’m healing climate. bye
A noble suicide for climate justice would be to hold your breath, in order to build up as much CO2 in your lungs as possible, and then wait for your body temperature to cause the molecules of the increased build up to back radiate to such an extent that your lungs caught fire and spontaneously combusted you.
Better still, sit in front of some really big cubes of ice, waiting for them to slow the rate at which your body cools to such an extent that your body’s emissivity decreased infinitely to back up heat to spontaneously combust you.
Seriously though, thanks for some insight on the temp-of-a-single-molecule thing.
Molecules have energy. Ensembles of molecules have an average energy that humans define as temperature. Does that look about right ? Thus, the temperature measurement of the ensemble would NOT necessarily translate to any one molecule of that ensemble. Any one molecule could have energy higher or lower than that which determines its place in the collective for which the temperature would be measured. Yes ? No ?
Think I’ll make me a grilled cheese sandwich now using some cold nitrogen. And to drink, … a chilled glass of beer with all its CO2 bubbly, magical-gas deliciousness further “polluting” my existence. Then, maybe I’ll do some suffering for climate. What a noble life !
The moderator FLACALTENN JUST banned me over there when i HUMILIATED him not being able to name the law of physics governing temperatures of gases.
He came in because they had all been complaining about me but it was fun while it lasted I think I’m gonna go do it again.
Actually I had my say for awhile, I’ll let that soak into them all awhile.
“Your career at Taco Bell,
vs
My degree in radiant transfer and career as an Atmospheric Chemist.”
That MAY have had something to do with it.
I’m gonna give em some time for the shock to wear off so it doesn’t become an OFFICIAL sport to hate my guts more than them all.
Or, “more than anyone else,”
lol, I wasn’t trying to sound full of myself I was trying to dredge up a sort of limerick in my mind, and sometimes I’ll write part of a phrase that comes to mind, then see if actually looking at the phrase makes it click that there’s a sorta funny turn of words available to use…
then, obviously, I wind up claiming a photon is a furball.
And yeah Robert pretty much what you’re saying about gas molecules’ behavior in general. Gases are very simple Bob, they really are, Their behaviors are all just a mathematical description of a myriad individual, VERY similar constituent molecules, even when they’re mixes.
And of course it’s very easy to see why, since this planet’s pressure, and energy levels, etc determine what can be gas – things that become gas exist in a finite range, before they’re either so cold, lack of energy stops the electrons from skittering around so much, fundamental characteristics about the electrons’ activity potential alter to the point the stuff either contracts down and stops being gas any more – solid or liquid,
or so much energy is added that the VERY hot gas particles become the next most energetic phase of matter, plasma.
In between there, no structures ever form. You’ve got a triple skajillion individual little molecules that will not EVER hold hands and make a termite nest. Will not EVER absorb oil, or liquid water, or absorb anything else in a way that’s actually ADSorption because they’re just too simplistic in their mechanics.
Then there’s the very thing we’re talking about here, and that’s the behavior of any specific group or division of gas molecules, handling ENERGY in some unusual, complex way, that would require more math. And they don’t.
So what you wind up with is a phase of matter that’s compressible in general, unlike solids and liquids. So – you NEED compression and you need to know the average energy per mole of each gas, so you have to have gas law. Today there’s really only one used nearly worldwide, because it bridges the BIG 4 before it. It’s an ingenious piece of work that took so long to write as gas law because the factor for average energy per mole, R, was so hard to figure out for ALL gases out to like… many many decimal points.
But then past that, Robert, the one Ideal gas law with that formula PB =nRT, and part II of this same law, named “The Chart of Specific Heats of Gases.” One of the rows in the chart is the relationship overall, assigning each Gas a value R over on the right hand side derived, from the calculations of Specific heats, whether in constantPRESSURE or constantVOLUME theoretical conditions.
And basically Bob that’s almost it. For the Atmosphere/Earth/Sun complex that’s really all you need.
And since this is so Bob to point out what I’m saying, check it out how we’re talking about a paragraph or two and ONE law the bridges and unifies FOUR, being the foundation for a HUGE amount of actual practical work dealing with gases, industrial, whatever, atmospheric, medical, this sorta thing. Obviously that’s not THE end of it, but now –
think about how – no physical structures, – how many maths, does this simple lack of structure instantly wipe out from the worlds of gases? ALL of them in some way, I’m trying to convey, Bob.
Then – what about things liquids can do? They stick together to pour, to not drift out of containers, they obey gravity more because they’re far denser, – you’ve got ANOTHER round of mathematics to describe all this stuff on workdays on holidays on other days on unusual days, regular days, gases,
just never become subject to all this, because – NONE of it ever happens.
Just cause they’re in gas phase, NOT the other two (main ones) ALL their phyical literature is UTTERLY GUTTED of ALL those matters that create the aggregate math, that acts as a sort of tracking documentation, of all that will, can, is, was going on.
Gas phase matter mechanics, just don’t HAVE this. This is why, if you MAKE yourself, learn how to PROPERLY DISCUSS a COLD NITROGEN BATH, so it’s at the level of an AIR CONDITIONING TECHNICIAN, BOB, YOU KNOW just a FREAKIN bout as much about gases as the world’s SMARTEST climatologist.
YES
you
DO, Bob, which is why, – gimme a sec here to reset…. yes you do Bob, and that explains something I’ve tried to in a VERY entertaining way, display.
WE ALL KNOW the SUBLIMINALLY ORGASMIC JOY almost ALL magic gassers get, at seeing someone stumped with their scam. We all, ALSO know, that’s why I go around chasing people as the Allen Eltor character. *PEOPLE will TRY to TELL you THEY WON’T COME BARK about MAGICAL GASSINESS because ALLEN is a MEAN MEAN MAN.*
You and I Bob know that fully 40% of them LIVE to tangle with soeone like me – til they hear what I say. And THEN, after about TWO days, they don’t even want to come OUT.
So they dig in and read, and read, and read, and they realize – not what I’m saying to you just here, but that – there’s not one hope in HELL of EVER showing their face again where I find them because I ridicule them for telling people all these sophisticated “mathematical analyses” are REAL.
If you ever hear rocket (ground) engineers, or astronauts or pilots, describing the chain of flow in and out of anything that processes fuel Bob one thing you’ll constantly hear: “gases aren’t very complicated,..” and I’m talking about at that applied instrumentation and handling, actions/reactions level. Not ONCE has ANYONE ever heard ANY rocket science give a big, long, put you to sleep interview about the PHYSICS and MATHS of GASES in – pretty much ANYTHING.
This is just SO true I wish I had some kinda concrete examples because it’s in every documentary about flight or rocket engines, etc – if you just blink, before you know it, ALL TALK of the ACTIONS of the GASES and assorted MATHS, explained ‘for the layman’ – *BLiNK!* and that shit’s GONE.
It’s over. Rewind, “It comes in here and gets hot, (c.h.e.c.K..) and expands, (checK..) and it GOES OUT. He just described all the fuckin physics that can happen, to a JET engine, sucking in RAIN WATER and SOLID ICE, and PROCESSING it through FLAME and then OUT.
From ICE to FIRE – and it takes the guy the TIME to describe it, that it takes to say the words, “it gets hot, and it’s turbulent, and it comes out here.” ALL that MATH, ALL those ‘actions’.
Now this was the physics of either a POUND of jet fuel or a TON.
Think about how complicated it would be for ANYONE to describe a pound of… say… termites in a nest.
For someone to describe a pound of granite sitting there with several types of gravels all encased in another medium holding them all together.
It just doesn’t get as simple as gases, Bob, and this is a HUGE part of how the scam is perpetrated and promulgated.
If you really ARE an expert on gases and their behaviors and chemistries Bob, you KNOW, that the actual KEY to understanding it, is knowing ANY analysis – ANY past it being a – what’s that?
cold, turbulent, nitrogen (oxygen) bath,
conduction chilling a light-warmed rock.
With sufficient light blocking, temperature reducing refrigerant insulation, mixed in..
is purest of f***g bunk.
The REASON it’s so EASY for people to INTIMIDATE people about this is that the FRAUDS keep saying ”WE keep DOCUMENTING and YOU keep DENYING.”
The FACT they are DOCUMENTING O.N.E. single WORD past
COLD nitrogen/oxygen BATH,
CONDUCTION CHILLING ROCK,
with LIGHT blocking REFRIGERANTS in it,
It became a fucking Conan the Barbarian meets Willy Wonka story Robert. Just TOTAL: TOTAL fucking FANTASY.
It’s a STORY about a COLD nitrogen bath,
being claimed, to be HEATING the ROCK it’s CHILLING
by the 22% of the sun’s TOTAL energy
the BATH takes OUT of the ROCK
till it’s like that 22% was never removed..
then when back at “Sunlight 100%” levels,
further heating the ENTIRE planet surface,
and ENTIRE cold nitrogen/oxygen bath,
33 degrees, above the TEMPERATURE FULL SUNLIGHT WOULD DELIVER.
The COLD nitrogen bath that REMOVED 22% from temperature,
ADDED that 22% back through SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
of 22% of the SUNS TOTAL ENERGY.
Then heated the ENTIRE planet surface and cold nitrogen bath 33 degrees.
When what REALLY happened is they got caught processing global atmospheric temperature not USING gas LAW and claiming the 33 DEGREES COMPRESSION WARMING the weight of the atmosphere invokes – something INTRINSIC to compressible matter HENCE A GAS LAW..
claiming the 33 degrees compression warming,
is actually a ‘magical gaissiness that dun flipp’t the lawsa fisicks,
and now, whin yew make less light go in a rock with speshul insulashun,
that much moar light and a hoal bunch moar comes owt, cawse yew didn’t let it in. !YaW!
And the 22% energy REMOVED, is BEFORE the CHILLING as a COLD NITROGEN BATH.
Don’t forget THAT.
The 22% COOLING by the MAIN green house gas water, it’s almost ALL done by water,
is BEFORE
the PHASE CHANGE EVAPORATIVE/CONDENSING PHASE-CHANGE REFRIGERATION of the SURFACE, it’s associated features, and the ENTIRE COLD NITROGEN BATH it REFRIGERATES,
with the convection-driven multiple phase-change REFRIGERATION it does, during STORMS.
Even in MEDIUM storms water evaporates then rises to condense to ice, fall again to sublimate from ice back to vapor, up to emit and hand off till it’s so cold it’s ice again, back down, RE-sublimate or convert to gas, RISE, dump THAT energy – this goes on SCORES of times,
even in MEDIUM size storms and is the very DEFINITION of PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERATION.
So the FIRST 22% never REACHING the planet due to the COOLING light blocking phase-change REFRIGERANT is BEFORE,
it starts REFRIGERATING the ENTIRE Earth/Atmospheric complex.
That’s the ”core” of the COLD nitrogen bath, that SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATES 1/5TH OF THE entire energy of the sun reaching it, THEN FURTHER SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATES enough FRAUD energy that it warms the ENTIRE cold nitrogen bath that DWARFS it, 33 degrees MORE.
MORE than 100% sunlight temperatures,
by taking AWAY 22% of sunlight.
Sorry about the bad editing
Allen, it is possible you are not permanently banned, maybe a week long ban?
I have seen banning to be temporary, even Fort Fun Indiana was temporarily banned.
Once you have it go in settings: v.p.n. = on
Blue light comes on in address box: you’re on.
Adjust manually as as per SUPER simple.
SUPER reliable. SUPER fast. SUPER robust.
These people spend a lot of money on your freedom of speech.
Go ahead and take em up on it and use it. It’s unlimited VPN.
You can watch youtube on it they don’t care. And it’s fast enough
to do it with ease. These are hyperfast v.p.n.s. You’ll see.
https://www.opera.com/download
Before you
go to
your favorite resort
for expression of free speech
to participate in healingcommunity dialog,
open a tab for jetable or someplace similar so you can register
and share in authorized free speech, process, and participate
in the healthy exchange of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural
ideals leading to uplifting and encouragement of all, yaw.
https://jetable.org/en/index
There’s a box.
Put in an email address you can get to.
===============================
When the email address is in the box,
Press the button once.
At your email address
will appear an email saying
“This email address will be active an hour//day//week//month.
You don’t need 60 minutes.
You need 6 seconds.
Go to that local favorite bustling center of thriving cultural exchange,
click “Lemme in yaW not participatin’s tearin up my values and roots”
put in the burner email where you need it
Verification email from yoN Village of Civility,
will bel forwarded instantly to YOUR email,
and now you have it.
Click “Yes” to verify you’re old enough for polygasmic cultural enrichment
and *BanG.* All of a sudden, you’ve got real family online,
and you can now go share. Stories of faith, and culture.
If they ban you
Do it again. 1,000 times. There’s no rush.
There’s no danger. With the tools above,
you are safe. If you put the vpn location
on another nation than your own,
someone threatening your free speech right,
will have to get an INTERNATIONAL WARRANT.
(Don’t do shit that might require an INTERNATIONAL WARRANT.)
That will require Tor +
I assume that’s not gonna happen.
If it is don’t tell me. I don’t want to know you.
For blogging climate, even concept of an INTERSTATE warrant is ridiculous.
We’re gaining massive yardage in this war of admittedly, miles.
You have EVERY right to share in free unmoderated speech untrammeled by fear.
Especially you people, trying to fight, to right the world’s entire natural sciences infrastructure
from CONTINUAL, utter demolition by vandalizing, EXTORTIONIST CRIMINALS.
I thought you guys ALL knew about doing this, I hope it helps you.
Oh first sentence above was “Go to the Opera page and get it, install it, and go to settings.
“Sunsettommy says:
2018/07/09 at 8:35 AM
Allen, it is possible you are not permanently banned, maybe a week long ban?
I have seen banning to be temporary, even Fort Fun Indiana was temporarily banned.”
I don’t care Tommy, I coulda been back in there last night but I thought better of it. I made my point and they’re pretty much in shock.
I posted above how none of you honest people ever need to worry about your free speech being trammeled by some insensitive oaf again, until it gets to the point of you needing an INTERNATIONAL WARRANT on you.
As I’m typing here I’m realizing maybe not everyone’s real computer savvy. Opera has an unlimited, VERY FAST VERY RELIABLE VERY ROBUST free vpn or – a fake I.P. address so if yours gets compromised and you’re i.p. banned that’s instantly silliness of a bygone era.
It’s not fake, it’s real, it’s just not your actual personal one, they see on their end. That’s the beauty of it all. I really recommend you guys take what I’m saying in consideration and learn how to leverage your presence with people that way. You shouldn’t walk the f***g planet, afraid “some people on the internet I don’t know, will maybe harm me for telling the truth.”
You don’t deserve that and people like me, tell you about things like this, because you deserve better. Far better, than to sit around not really knowing how instantly you can be perfectly free
from all that anxiety and tension that maybe “you’re not talking like the frauds tell you is ok.”
If I’d have realized you guys don’t all know and use this I’d have told you all instantly. It is, what it is, I’m really sorry if you guys don’t all know this.
This is how the world avoids being pinned down just like before there was perfectly usable, free, ANONYMOUS and TRULY FREE internet free speech expression.
Peace, don’t take any shaggy bark wooden thermodynamic nickels!
.
…. is it ok if I say the word free a whole lot for no real reason?
This is how Opera figured out how to give you a series of revolving ip addresses: it’s actually a proxy made to look like a vpn.
Your traffic doesn’t actually go to Europe so you’re NOT free from WARRANTS in the United States.
It was nagging me that I’d said that. FIRST return FIRST google page:
“Opera VPN explained.”
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/04/22/opera-browser-vpn-proxy/
It is true however that it’s an effective foil to – anything but legal work, or we’d have heard and seen about it being broken, on the news. That would be a pretty big deal in GeeK world.
When they INVENTED doing it this way, I guess they HAVE a machine with a proxy they stamp the data from, and on the one machine they have several hundred or thousand proxies? Not sure, but in any case,
the pragmatic version of this is that anyone backtracking you, SEES your TRAFFIC on the HEADER REPORTS – I might be mis-using the term, but on every web pages a lotta information has to come with it, where to send all the answers, all this,
and this virtual server proxying system does all the adjustments to YOUR page from some running proxies, that are actually electronically on the internet they just aren’t handling any traffic, but the important exact info one handling traffic would generate is there to be stamped ONTO YOUR TRAFFIC so IT LOOKS like to pretty much EVERYBODY that you’re speaking from Asia or Europe or all over North America – wherever.
Since we haven’t heard about this method being broken, – we being those of us who use it AND just folks opening a news web page and seeing it noted on a link, on a side-bar –
since there’s no real noise of it not working, it might be that, since they HAVE that computer bank here, there, with the NON traffic bearing servers – that in order to find out where that information is coming from they’d have to subpoena the people who actually have that proxy server running in
Europe.
It might not have come up in significant law someone’s discovered yet.
MY bet is that if there was a subpoena, the FIRST thing Opera would DO is say – hey we CONTRACT someone to RUN that proxy for us, facing the internet and stamping traffic from our browser with IT’S info, and WE DON’T KEEP that info – YOU SUBPOENA that CONTRACTOR in EUROPE.
At that point it’s like.. Hmm. So – NO BODY is making a PEEP thus far about this (new to a lot of us) security technology step pioneered by these guys at this Opera place. This is a big f**n deal, kids, this is like Uncle Obamma’s Cair Package
to the national Health System. Only different.
They have (ostensibly, or hypothetically – i mean wtF else would they be doin LoL?) a bunch of proxies in some towns, not actually handling traffic but they’re OFFICIALLY ON the INTERNET FACING the internet – and just – everything that comes from YOUR browser, you flick a switch that says “Make me look like I’m in any one of these hundred different servers in Prague.”
Everything coming from you, STOPS at a strip mall in Prague. End of story, BYE BYE Mr ”THE MAN” telling me -I don’t get to TALK on the INTERNET because YOU don’t APPROVE my WORDS.
Oh NO
-=F**k=-
-=THAT=-.
Opera ANNOUNCED: this is specifically designed to put a stop to people following you home and raiding your credit cards/private info/free speech. This is a big deal, guys, it really is, and if you can spread this to the entire world – if you have a website – you need to go over and wave that big red O flag because these people have set the entire internet free of that “I know where you live so the whole world’s gonna turn on you, we’re criminals and you’re gonna find out” bullshit.
It’s THE TOOL the government employees used on those people when they cleared EVERY SINGLE HONEST SCIENTIST OUT of the WESTERN WORLD’S NATURAL SCIENCES, PEER REVIEW system. “I know where you live, b***ch. You’re gonna meet a government approved mob.”
THEY met Opera. And I’m a music lover.
Down at the bottom: note where it says their “Browser VPN” or expanded proxy, “doesn’t interact with your plug-ins” so if someone is able somehow to comb your traffic your PLUGINS send, THAT once decoded from machine protocol, would reveal the IP address they were communicating with: your place. Obviously wordpress isn’t providing people that kind of information yet and lets hope it’s awhile till anyone works through this. Note they said two years ago that they’re working on that too, so..
Yesterday I had been gonna tell you guys about another part you can do to REALLY befuddle people at places like blogs. Even if people got warrants to surveil you not everybody who tries to get political dirt on you for talking about the weather can even interpret standard Internet Protocol stuff, they need the f***n technician to circle stuff for em.
But let’s say you want yet another layer of protection. It’s not security per SE but then.. yeah, it is, it’s a way, to hide the kind of machine you’re on and IT – is a ONE click deal. It works fine, back when people were threatening me I used it quite a lot because it shuts them the blank up about “thinking it’s the same person” a LOT.
In electronic data protocols when info arrives there’s “First things first, who are you, what number are you in a series of transmissions, etc” and one of these internet demanded values, is something called the “USER-AGENT.”
It does’t refer to you and your IT company or anything like that, this was about machines talking to each other when they invented these terms within internet communications. It refers,
to your machine. And, which browser your machine is sending data from.
So in a literal way, ”USER-AGENT” means “hardware-browser combination”. Ok?
Hardware-Browser, combination. Render these pages for this ”hardware/browser” combination.
ALL BROWSERS have add-ons so you can ONE CLICK CHANGE THIS. This isn’t quite so international man of mystery as jumping out of a jet on a bungee and cutting the cord when you grab the antenna of a sky scraper,
but it IS going a LITTLE further to conceal who you are.
And sometimes when you pick a hardware/browser combo from the drop down menu, the page won’t render JUST exactly right so you have to drop-down point-click another.
It really is no biggie. You’ll see if you ever use it.
I use it as much any more since the election.
https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/user-agent-switcher/
This is really good to have when someone who’s a moderator is helping the science darkening sh** eating hicks acts stamp out civil free speech.
Once you start that VPN and of course have the instant email generator so you can get that first and last email from any site,
dropping down a little menu and picking any one of some 50 different hardware/browser combinations means – even a computer can’t scan through who has visited a place and Identify you using the standard IP data returned, EVEN for WARRANTS asking for that.
So if you want to ponder and explore having that extra layer, so you can just have more real-world understanding of some IMPORTANT STUFF in your world, the User-Agent Switcher is good for you.
You don’t have to think that, “all those other people know about these things, I don’t know much about that,” and sit there wishing your important comments just somehow haven’t been able to be among the important ones somewhere. That’s not right.
Peace gentle hippies.
The user agent switcher is for when you’re in Europe or elsewhere, where people can use the fact that it seems to be the very same equipment and browser, same operating system, for several posts, and make you a criminal for being afraid the government isn’t running things correctly in a way best for the people.
In the US it’s good for foiling smartasses, or sending messages to people where you need to seem like you’re on a particular piece of equipment, but actually you’re on another.
If you really have to bat around like a – real man of mystery, you’re gonna notice that on WordPress etc – different websites – certain claimed hardware/browser configurations WILL format and display correctly and many also WON’T.
Don’t worry about that at all just figure out which ones work well enough that you can make your posts, and go, and remember them. If it’s not real long and drawn-out, you can use more User-Agent combinations
to type a few sentences.
Can someone explain what “radiative forcing” is supposed to mean?
Means nothing .. doesn’t exist .. no such thing
George…
What squid2112 said…!
But here is the official IPCC definition (Working Group I, 2007):
[“The definition of RF from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’. Radiative forcing is used to assess and compare the anthropogenic and natural drivers of climate change.“]
‘Radiative Forcing’ is just another pseudoscience term invented by pro-cAGW advocates to hide the underlying lack of scientific fact. Like ‘Backradiation’. They are just making sh:t up as they go along…
“Radiative forcing” is SUPPOSED to refer to the difference between incoming solar and outgoing infrared, in Watts/m^2. That is the closest it gets to anything scientific, but even that is WRONG, as radiative fluxes of different frequencies can NOT be added/subtracted arithmetically.
But, it gets worse.
The climate clowns attempt to apply a “radiative forcing” to their fraudulent “greenhouse gases”. They have assigned about 1.5 Watts/m^2 to CO2. Because their assigned value never works in their models, they keep needing more funding to determine the “real” value.
The “real” value is, of course, 0.0000000 Watts/m^2! Molecules floating in the atmosphere do NOT add energy to the system.
I left out:
1) I concur with squid and arfur.
2) I can expand the accuracy of “0.0000000” to more decimal places, with additional funding….
If anything in climate alarm science were rational, radiative forcing would simply refer to the potential of thermal EM radiation to induce a temperature increase on an incident surface, IFF (if and only if) there is heat transfer, given that temperature can only increase if there is heat transfer. And heat will only transfer from the EM radiation if it is greater in energy density than the incident surface’s energy density. Just basic physics.
In climate alarm pseudoscience however, radiative forcing is associated with “backradiation” where a cold atmosphere can heat up a warmer surface by some mechanism not involving heat transfer but acting JUST LIKE heat transfer by sending energy, but from cold to hot instead of hot to cold.
squid, geran, and arfur, thank you for your replies! I thought radiative forcing was BS. Joe, thank you as well !!
The true definition of “radiative forcing” is forcing down your throat an argument about the importance of CO2 radiation, where there is no importance to it at all in this respect, and forcing you to obey policies based on such arguments.
Joe,
Thanks to your trilogy of articles, and another similar article by Charles Anderson, I really do get it. Back-radiation (also inferred by the use of the word “net” in any false heat transfer equation) does not exist.
The S-B law of radiant exitance = σ T^4 applies only for a blackbody when radiating into a 0K environment. In all other circumstances, radiant exitance = ɛ σ (T WARM^4 – T COOL^4). When used in conjunction with the Stefan Law for Radiant energy density = a T^4 , it can be shown that only the warmer object can emit photons to the cooler object across the radiation energy density gradient that will exist between the two objects. It can also be shown that an object with an internal power source will, when the steady-state has been established between another other passive object in a vacuum, radiate all of the power generated by that object according to ɛ σ (T WARM^4 – T COOL^4) . However, prior to the steady-state being established, the cooler object (when constructed of an insulating material) will need to establish a kinetic energy gradient across it’s mass before it is, itself able to radiate (from a different surface) all of the radiant energy that the warmer object wishes to dissipate. The other object will thus require a higher temperature on it’s warmer (receiving) side to radiate on it’s cooler (emitting) side. Although those photons emitted from the warmer object are thermalized on the surface of the cooler object, the kinetic energy that now exists on this thermalized surface is not readily conducted away from this surface so, by the equation ɛ σ (T WARM^4 – T COOL^4), the radiant exitance from the warmer object will be restricted, such that the ‘excess power’ within the power-generating object will be converted to kinetic energy inside the warmer object (and thus results in increased temperature) until the sufficient radiant energy density gradient can be established between the two objects. I have written an essay on this topic and submitted it to PSI, but I suspect that that last revelation is causing some consternation at PSI – it is a concept that us RGHE-deniers have always denied – but I can show that it is a real thing. I have emailed the essay to you – perhaps you and John O’Sullivan can discuss it. I believe that my essay really does blow the whole “back-radiation” argument away.
Steve T., it seems you are still confused by the two equations:
A) P/A = σ T^4
B) P/A = σ (Th^4 – Tc^4)
Equation “A” is the Stefan-Boltzmann (S/B) Law. It applies (with adjustments for emissivity) EVERYWHERE, EVERYDAY. It does not only apply if the object is radiating to 0 K, it applies regardless of the ambient temperature.
Equation “B” is messing you up. It is NOT the S/B Law. It is an equation that has no practical application in the real world. It is often used in classroom instruction, using perfect conditions, but unfortunately it misleads more that it instructs. You should completely disregard equation “B”. Otherwise you will come to erroneous conclusions as you did when you determined that the colder object could warm the hotter object.
(That’s a very succinct comment, but I’ll be happy to add clarity if you have questions.)
I’m confident that the S-B law only applies to a Blackbody radiating into a 0K environment – if this were not so, two objects would be allowed to radiate their radiant existance towards one another – this would cause the radiant energy desity above the surface of both the cooler object and the warmer object to be violated by the “rogue” photons being emitted by the cooler object toward the warmer object. It is this issue that is the topic of my essay (I’ve posted a lot of it here already) – it will put all of us (Alarmist, Lukewarmist and Deniers alike) on a proper footing. Not being boastful, but this is why what my essay shows is so important. Until my essay is accepted, I’d be happy to share it with you if Joe would be so kind as to forward my email to you, so that we can close the loop off-line. Even better, Joe could act as arbiter – but I know he’s very busy and only dips in with hints and help now and then.
Steve says: “…if this were not so, two objects would be allowed to radiate their radiant existance towards one another…”
There is nothing wrong with objects emitting toward each other. That violates NO laws. It happens all the time.
Steve continues: “…this would cause the radiant energy desity above the surface of both the cooler object and the warmer object to be violated by the “rogue” photons being emitted by the cooler object toward the warmer object.”
There is nothing wrong with different photons passing each other. Again, no violations–happens all the time.
It appears you are seeing violations where there are none, but not seeing the violations where they occur.
Geran has been 100% correct on this and it is a crucial distinction which is fundamental and fundamentally necessary to refute RGHE pseudoscience.
The equation with the difference of terms is only heat flow, which is transient, and is not conserved. The RGHE pseudoscience tries to make the heat flow equation the conserved quantity, but this prevents heat flow from ever being able to be zero which thus prevents the existence of thermal equilibrium and also results in runaway self warming etc etc. It’s also contradictory because the emission terms are already inside the equation fully emitting.
Photons are like water waves…they pass through each other. It’s their frequency spectrum, not their intensity, which determines their forcing potential.
The energy flux density of photons is a function of the spectrum, not the quantity. In fact the quantity is set and fixed by the spectrum. Adding two identical spectrums of photons results in the exact same spectrum…it doesn’t change the frequencies. This is because photons are bosonic waves. Two identical waves make the same wave together, and depending on phase during their interaction they can cancel each other out entirely or double their amplitude, but this doesn’t affect the frequency and it’s the frequency which determines ionization effects, thermal effects etc etc. Re: the photoelectric effect etc.
.Thank you Joe and Geran, I had been desperate to correct myself when I saw Geran’s response but ripping out a kitchen prevented me from getting to my keyboard until now. What I should have said, more precisely is; an object will NOT always radiate at it’s surface temperature but will only do so if an equal or greater radiative energy density is not imposed upon it from it’s surroundings i.e. when a greater radiant energy density is imposed upon an object’s surface, that surface will NOT emit photons but instead will only be able to receive photons on that particular surface. To do so would violate the radiant energy density that existed immediately above it’s surface. I wish I could have said that this lapse in definition was the result of brevity in my responses but I also had been similarly lazy in my essay. I apologise again for causing you guy’s anguish and I hope this clarifies the other points I’m trying to make to you all, it’s all about the radiant energy density that exists above the surface of an object which determines whether it can emit photons. A surface that is emitting photons will do so only at the radiant exitance of ɛ σ (T WARM ^4 – T COOL ^4). So, unless that object is emitting into a 0K environment, it’s emissions will always be inhibited to a lesser or greater effect until it is inhibited from doing so entirely by the radiative energy density imposed upon it by it’s surroundings. Whilst an object is emitting at ɛ σ (T WARM ^4 – T COOL ^4) it might still receive photons from other objects whose own emissions have not been entirely supressed and the energy that’s added to the radiant energy density above the surface by such photons most also be accounted for on the surface because these will thermalise the surface i.e their radiative energy must be accounted for as additional kinetic energy on that surface. I don’t think I can explain it any more precisely than that, in this short response posting – and I don’t want my laptop to crash again trying to write this
Steve, I can’t speak for Joseph, but you’re not causing me any anguish at all. You’re being very sincere and open about your beliefs, and I detect no animosity or disrespect on your part. So, it’s no problem for me, as I attempt to offer assistance. Joseph is a great teacher, and as we seen, will join in as his time allows.
You’re obviously a smart guy. That’s why it’s important to get the science correct, and avoid going down the wrong paths. So, I’m going to speak very directly, in the interest of both clarity and saving time. Please let nothing about my approach offend you in anyway.
Physics is a “hard” science. It is not a “science” where you get to see things as you want. There are very established LAWS, that MUST be obeyed—no ifs, ands, or buts! The Stefan-Boltzmann LAW is such an animal. It has a mathematical derivation, and is reinforced by over a century of empirical validation. That’s why it is a LAW. It cannot be ignored, altered, or “re-interpreted”.
You appear to be trying to ignore, alter, and re-interpret the S/B LAW!
You stated: “…an object will NOT always radiate at it’s surface temperature…”
WRONG! The S/B Law states that an object will always radiate based on its surface temperature.
You stated: “…but will only do so if an equal or greater radiative energy density is not imposed upon it from it’s surroundings…”
WRONG! The S/B Law states that an object will always radiate based on its surface temperature.
You stated: “To do so would violate the radiant energy density that existed immediately above it’s surface.”
WRONG! An object emits based on its temperature, not on its surroundings.
You stated: “…it’s all about the radiant energy density that exists above the surface of an object which determines whether it can emit photons.”
WRONG! An object emits based on its temperature, not on its surroundings.
You stated: “A surface that is emitting photons will do so only at the radiant exitance of ɛ σ (T WARM ^4 – T COOL ^4).”
WRONG! A surface emits based on the S/B Law.
I could go on, as there are more examples in your text, but hopefully you get the point. You MUST obey the law. You appear to want to disregard the law, and only apply equation “B” (from my comment upthread). You do NOT get to pick and choose your equations.
Again, please excuse my directness. If I need to add more, or if you have any questions, please advise.
Geran, you’ve overlooked something that makes a lot of what you went on about, just a bit over the top.
All he’s doing is his best to describe what happens when radiant energy strikes something.
About 90% of all you underlined with a big WRONG isn’t actually, when you realize he simply mis-used a single phrase: an object’s temperature.
He meant it’s own internal temperature, as in – if you have a resistor creating it’s own internal temperature.
He was remarking that the energy fields surrounding this object with an internal temperature of it’s own,
determine the final temperature the object radiates it’s own, internally generated temperature from.
So.. you need to know that. He’s not all wrong lol he just misplaced a word in a phrase. LoL
I mean a resistor with a power supply.
When something is powered so it gets warmed,
this is often referred to as generating it’s own internal temperature.
Everything that HAS an internal temperature, is glowing that energy off at a level set by another temperature: ambient temperature or external energy levels.
He’s just describing classical physical energy handling, in general. Not much more nor less.
Just be clear that such an ambient environment temperature has an independent power source either currently or historically. Earth’s atmosphere is not an independent ambient temperature environment to which such considerations would apply.
Allen, I’m not sure what is confusing you. The S/B law applies whether or not the object is being powered.
I identified the exact quotes where Steve got it wrong. Maybe if you could do the same for me, I could clarify.
Thanks.
Geran I went to school a fair amount of time to answer all the questions, trick or not,
about radiant transfer Geran and I’m not confused. I worked in radiant transfer field
after specializing in it in school.
I already said what there is to say regarding Steve’s post. He used the term “it’s temperature” several times, regarding an object’s own internally generated temperature, just like someone would, if they assumed others were following right along.
He didn’t insert the full phrase knowing people savvy enough to discuss it correctly would get his drift. When he said temperature he was referring to any object’s own internally generated temperature.
I hate to be redundant about it but it’s just a fact that any object generating internal temperature will have it’s own temperature independent of any other external energy input. This is the temp something would be if in vacuum with zero – as in an absolute-zero-class light input from without.
I said already if you go back and know where to put that part, what he’s saying is an accurate if not most-elegant (shortest) possible but – it’s not bad, I know exactly what he’s talking about.
Regarding your assertion that the blanket statement, “no colder object contributes to an already hotter one being warmer than it would be” it’s just plain not correct to say that in all cases.
We’re discussing what makes a resistor having ten watts fed into it by a battery in a black metal or cardboard box, glowing off that ten watts, at three distinctly different temperatures,
when the box/resistor/battery are put into a very low-light, almost absolute-zero deep-space environment,
then out on the ground in Antarctica,
then out on the ground in Phoenix.
The resistor in glowing off it’s own 10 watts, often intuitively referred to as “it’s own temperature”
at just a few degrees above absolute-zero,
at just a few degrees above -50C in Antarctica,
at just a few degrees above +50C in Phoenix.
The resistor is demonstrably always ten watts warmer than the inside of the box.
The resistor is demonstrably always ten watts warmer than the ambient conditions, pre-set the resistor’s temperature.
This is what that fraud barking “I dun shyn’T muh thurmomidur at the sky and mayzhured mea uh BaCKeRDiSM YaW!” Spencer was saying when he drew up the
FALSE ANALOGY to the conditions in which Joseph said that “no colder object warms one warmer than itself” This is ALWAYS true when conduction becomes involved, as in the case of the Earth/Atmosphere.
The cold atmosphere has already cooled the planet as far as it can,
and the incidental light pinging off the cold atmosphere has already been fully accounted when the math was done, the first time.
But it is not Geran, a blanket-truth, an unconditional statement, that cooler objects can’t warm, objects that are warmer.
*That very thing happening, is why that resistor is 3 different temperatures
in deep space,
Antarctica,
and Phoenix.
We’re all sorta going around right now, Steve, etc – I think Robert, that’s what I’ve been mostly thinking about here lately
about the nature of the mathematics of the radiant transfer part only, without a cold Atmospheric bath being accounted in the discussion.
They’ve been trying to sort out, exactly what you and I are discussing right now, actually.
The conditions in which “No colder object can warm one already hotter” is a fully true, absolutely true statement,
and when (effectively why) that’s NOT an absolutely true statement.
Poor editing Geran but I assume you get what I’m saying. The atmosphere is a different consideration when asserting nothing colder can warm, something already warmer.
The cold bath of nitrogen lowers Earth surface temperature dramatically.
This is AFTER the cooling greenhouse gases reduce total planet temperature 22%.
In this instance, when you figure out how many degrees the cold nitrogen bath chills the light warmed rock, and then the GHGs themselves, SEPARATELY from the cold bath at large,
any incident radiation glowing out of the surface after the dual, massive cooling by the GHGs FIRST then the overall nitrogen bath as a conduction path – you’ve already done, ALL the MATH,
THERE is to DO and
NONE of that math,
involves any FAKE back warming, by the radian’t energy pinging off the atmosphere in back, while light’s glowing out of the surface.
In that instance it’s absoLUTELY proper to say “NO cold OBJECT WARMS something warmer than itself”
But in the case of radiant ONLY transfer – yes it does.
Please do me a favor. Don’t act like there’s some snowball’s chance you’re right and I’m wrong, because – that’s going to have zero mileage.
Zero Geran.
It’s a non-starter because of the consideration of the resistor in the box.
Every time you try to enforce a reading of the law
that involves that blanket assertion that nothing colder,
can make something warmer,
even warmer than it would have been anyway,
you’re faced with someone pointing at ANY THING in the UNIVERSE and saying,
“why is that object radiating at above absolute-zero, at the temperature it’s radiating at?
Even objects at the FARTHEST corner of space – always have SOME light left in them and they don’t reach TRUE absolute zero because the LOW ENERGY FIELD of SPACE
creates that
base temperature of a few degrees ABOVE absolute-zero.
Objects radiate THEIR light off the top of that deep-space ambient light field’s sum.
Whenever you’re discussing an object having some reason for being warmer than external, ambient energy fields mandate – you refer to it as “glowing it’s own temperature off the top” of that ambient energy created baseline temperature.
I’m not really trying to be argumentative about it, it’s just that it’s not always true, and it makes for just terrible energy accounting
because if you don’t account ambient energy fields’ effects on the object at hand,
there’s no explanation why objects glow their internal energies
off
at different absolute levels.
Allen, that was a long rambling rant, but without one quote of mine that was wrong.
In fact, you mis-quoted me: “no colder object contributes to an already hotter one being warmer than it would be”
Where did I write that?
If you want to show you are not confused:
1) give one example where I was wrong,
2) don’t misquote me, and
3) stay on topic.
Hope that helps.
Allen Eltor, you are obviously very knowledgeable about radiant transfer. My wish is that you could communicate in a more readable manner. I try following your comments and they are far from clear.
For instance, I can’t see how the three resistors being the same temperature in any of the three environments are making something warmer from something colder. What am I missing. Spell it out for us dummies that aren’t on your level, please.
Thanks for your time if you reply. I do appreciate it!
Geran here’s you saying something about it “being error to assume the colder object can warm the hotter object.”
===========
“Equation “B” is messing you up. It is NOT the S/B Law. It is an equation that has no practical application in the real world. It is often used in classroom instruction, using perfect conditions, but unfortunately it misleads more that it instructs. You should completely disregard equation “B”. Otherwise you will come to erroneous conclusions as you did when you determined that the colder object could warm the hotter object.”
===========
The above statement is the first thing that created the idea you believed it erroneous in determining a colder object can warm a hotter one, just because of that relationship: you give no other reason.
There are other errors in the long list of things you alleged about the nature of radiation related to S/B but let’s go one or two things at a time so there’s no confusion.
What’s your reason for telling him he was erroneous in assuming the cold object could warm the hotter one?
Allen, you say you only want to avoid confusion, but instead of answering my request for one example of what I got wrong in the relevant comment…
…you wander off to a previous comment!
And, it falls on me to un-confuse things!
You stated that “about 90%” of the things I indicated were wrong, are wrong.
Again, what is one example of where I was wrong, in the relevant comment?
I have no interest in un-confusing folks that desire to be confused. Please answer responsibly and coherently. Otherwise, it is just too easy to ignore your comments.
Thanks.
George: when you speak of something’s temperature, there are always two components to it’s final measured temp.
There’s the internal energy, the object holds. You might have the resistor having energy pulled through it with the battery,
you might have a hot rock you pick up off the side of the road.
One thing that’s always gonna happen though, is that – when you get the meter out and check the rock, or resistor’s temperature,
that temp,
will always be a sum, of two things: the energy you’re putting into the rock separate from the external environment,
and then, the external environment is also going to be radiating energy from itself, whatever the environment might be.
Together these two quantities of energy set the final temperature of the object. It doesn’t really matter what direction you go in here, the point is that the final temperature of your object,
is always ultimately set,
by the sum of energy in surroundings bathing the object.
the reason the resistors in the boxes, are given batteries and embedded heater filaments, is to ensure our objects are all warmer than their surroundings.
Then you put them into boxes – black boxes – and the sum of all the light landing on the outside of the boxes, eventually glows off some infrared inside, where the battery-embedded rock is merrily glowing away it’s 10 watts I arbitrarily picked.
In deep space George there’s not much light striking anything but there’s not zero, and nothing ever finally goes to absolute-zero, because there’s always a LITTLE bit of light, landing on any particular point. And if you add some matter, that light’s gonna heat that rock a LITTLE bit.
So now your rock’s at almost absolute zero but not quite and you’ll find if you test the temperature of the glowing resistor you’re heating with the battery,
that when you do the math to figure out how many degrees the 10 watts can raise the resistor, the answer will be just short of the temp you just measured out in space. How much short? The difference between the ambient light warming the cooler box, and absolute zero.
If 10 watts raises the temp of your resistor 10 degrees,
then the final temp in space will be that 10 degrees, PLUS whatever the COLDER surroundings contribute.
When you go to Antarctica the same resistor and box, if you check the temp of the rock, once again it’s going to be a sum of two things: the object’s internally generated temperature
plus the temperature of the external environment: just like in space. Same resistor but now instead of it’s temperature being 400 below, it’s only 50 below. And actually if outside it’s -50C
we’re gonna find our resistor temperature being – that 50C, and the 10 degrees, putting ten watts through it contributes. So it’ll start out at -50 and since we’re going up toward zero when we ADD 10 degrees’ internal energy, our resistor glows off it’s ten watts, at -40C.
Then when we take it to Phoenix and it’s +50C – the resistor’s gonna glow off the ten degrees, ten watts creates internally, as a rise of ten above the local ambient temp.
It’s +50 out, the resistor’s power supply warms it another 10 so in Phoenix it’ll be +60C.
Each time, the resistor is – obviously – hotter, than inside the box, we’re warming it, to ensure this condition.
And yet each time we measured it’s temperature we found it’s final temp, to be a function of an original, ambient energy level sufficient to keep the resistor at some baseline temp,
plus the ten degrees we put into it.
Due to basically two con men, Fat Tony Watts and Roy Spencer, there’s been an ENORMOUS amount of falsehood spread regarding energy flow, and regarding THEIR claims, that OTHERS’ arguments have anything to do with their fake answers
Each of them drew up some strawman argument NOT about the EARTH/ATMOSPHERE/SUN system, again STRAWMAN “mental experiments” they claim to this day show it’s possible for cold nitrogen baths to be heaters. And more importantly for the cold light blocking refrigerants chilling both the surface and nitrogen/oxygen bath at large, to be the magical CORE of the cold nitrogen heater.
George says:
2018/07/14 at 12:00 PM
I can’t see how the three resistors being the same temperature in any of the three environments are making something warmer from something colder.
Geran you need to just go ahead and answer my question. Why did you tell him he was
“erroneous in determining the colder object warmed the hotter one.”
You give no other reason. What is your reason for telling him he is in error determining the colder object warmed the hotter one?
You said “show me one thing I said wrong.”
You finished up with “How do you even believe I think that?”
You’ve been shown the first thing I plan to addres,
***and now the frantic ducking has started.***
Just answer my question: Why did you say he was “erroneous when he determined the cold object warmed the hotter one” then give no other reason?
Allen, thank you so much for your explanation. It will take me awhile to digest it. Thanks again! God bless
You told him point blank Geran, “just like he was erroneous when he determined the colder object could warm the hotter one.”
I’m just curious why that would be put that way
if you’re not under the impression
“he was erroneous when he determined a colder object could warm a hotter one.”
Peace George
Allen, here’s my last comment to you.
It’s okay with me, if you’d prefer not to address it.
You did in FACT tell him things regarding S/B – as SIMPLE as that is – that are just plain wrong.
You’ve told him outright that temperature is INDEPENDENT of SURROUNDINGS and that is DEAD wrong. Surroundings SET final temperature. You told him …
======
“You stated: “To do so would violate the radiant energy density that existed immediately above it’s surface.”
WRONG! An object emits based on its temperature, not on its surroundings.
You stated: “…it’s all about the radiant energy density that exists above the surface of an object which determines whether it can emit photons.”
WRONG! An object emits based on its temperature, not on its surroundings.”
======
While it might be considered by some to be “partial error”
to try to disconnect temperature from surroundings in some peoples’ minds,
it’s just wrong.
Further you were laying it on TOP of the fact you had previously told him that
“he erroneously determined the colder object could warm the hotter one.”
“…just like you did when you erroneously determined the colder object could warm the hotter one.”
Hours after having said it, you’re defying me to show where you’ve been wrong once, or told him that “he was
On top of it all geran I’ve repeatedly brought up the point
that surroundings
determine temperature
of EVERYTHING,
EVERYWHERE.
This is just undeniable.
No, you’re oblivious to this even sounding real.
And you can’t imagine why I’d think you are under the impression “he was erroneous to determine the colder object could warm the hotter one?” Where’d I even get that idea? From you geran.
When you said so today just a few hours before denying you even know how
I’d think that you’d say it.
I’m not asking if you said all that today, I’m reminding you.
That’s only a partial list of the things you’ve said wrong.
It’s most of it, but – he doesn’t need to be told, surroundings don’t influence temperature.
Surroundings CREATE final temperature.
The fact that surrounding energy fields set temperature is also true of our cold, nitrogen, atmospheric bath.
The planet’s surface is cooled, MASSIVELY, by first the cooling GHGs as they take their 22% total sunlight energy right off the top of planet temperature calculation.
Then, the surface of the planet is chilled many degrees, by the swirling, turbulent, cold nitrogen/oxygen bath, through conduction.
Then and ONLY then, does S/B dictate the radiating temperature
and that temperature is DIRECTLY set by the SURROUNDINGS.
One of the FUNDAMENTALS in radiant transfer
is that – that radiant loss always occurs, after EVERY OTHER SURROUNDING INFLUENCE
has been CAREFULLY considered or YOU’LL GET the WRONG S/B TEMPERATURE
JUST like the MAGIC GAS CHURCH DOES when they don’t consider SURROUNDING GRAVITATIONAL FORCE
pulling on SURROUNDING matter holding X energy
when they MIS-CALCULATE the S/B temp of the PLANET and come up 33 DEGREES SHORT
because they DIDN’T ACCOUNT for the COMPRESSION WARMTH created by SURROUNDINGS.
They DO count the SURROUNDINGS affecting S/B temp when they TAKE AWAY the 22% from final temperature.
But their ERROR is DIRECTLY and SOLELY caused by NOT taking ALL the SURROUNDINGS’ energy-related influences, and NOT SOLVING for the 33 degrees compression warming caused by the surroundings’ GRAVITATIONAL pull on the surroundings’ total composite bath mass.
So – there’s several of your errors, geran.
Allen, buddy, I can see you‘re having a really hard time with this. Maybe I can help with an easy to follow, step-by-step process:
1) From the relevant comment (below), determine where you believe I was wrong.
2) Copy and paste my exact words, from the comment.
You can do it. Believe in yourself!
If not, hey, even the great hitters strike out. (You already have two strikes, but you probably knew that.)
As a matter of fact geran it is a TEST question regarding radiant transfer fundamentals, having to do with exactly what we’re talking about, and it had several forms but the main JiST of the deal is to ask you about several phases of matter –
solid, liquid, gas, plasma –
“At what stage should Stefan-Boltzmann processing be employed to project the true thermodynamic or absolute temperature of this phase matter? Why?
The answer geran is ALWAYS the same. Like I say
this is radiant transfer
fundamentals.
The answer is “last” for each and every phase with the same answer “why,” for them all:
Stefan-Boltzman processing CAN only TAKE PLACE
WHEN ALL SURROUNDING ENERGY FIELDS’ IMPACTS
have BEEN PROPERLY, and EXACTINGLY ACCOUNTED..
What you told Steve is the exact OPPOSITE of what is true, regarding that geran.
Hence it being necessary to take AWAY the energy the surroundings remove, (22%)
and it being necessary to ACCOUNT for the 33 degrees’ warming created by compression warming, a trait gas law is specifically written to address,
and THEN, when all the impacts of the surroundings have been accounted,
Stefan-Boltzmann processing can take care of it’s part.
That’s a fact, geran. It’s the correct answer to an actual test question in Stefan-Boltzmann related classes. That’s not going to be going away, because that’s how it really is, geran.
The very DEFINITION of proper S/B temperature processing is
accounting for ALL surroundings’ influence on temperature.
Peace
And Allen STRIKES OUT, on a swing and miss.
geran you’re not acting like you’re properly in contact with reality.
I already copied and pasted the words where you’re wrong in the S/B post.
You’re acting manic, and unable to properly process what’s happening before you.
See where I put the hash marks? That’s me quoting you.
Telling you the one of the TEST QUESTIONS regarding S/B PROCESSING is WHEN it takes PLACE in the overall process of solving for radiant temperature of anything.
The answer is that Stefan Boltzmann processing always happens last.
Why?
BECAUSE SURROUNDINGS DIRECTLY CREATE
FINAL RADIATING TEMPERATURE
and MUST BE ACCOUNTED
EXACTLY
or ERRORS
such as the one where magic gassers
calculate the Atmosphere’s temperature
and come up 33 degrees short by not accounting
our Atmosphere’s gravity-created atmospheric compression warming.
I see that you’re acting odd, claiming you’re unable to follow along.
I see you acting oddly manic: glossed over like nothing I’ve told you
makes any impression on you at all.
This is really not that difficult to follow: process steps in solving the
S/B temperature of matter RELY CRITICALLY
on SURROUNDINGS. Their cumulative impact
CREATES final S/B temperature,
making at least two of your S/B-related points,
wrong.
Dead wrong, geran. The precise opposite of what’s right.
No, that’s not really happening, I ain’t even signtsie?
I doant noe nuthin bowt no laws, uh no gaissis, and I ain’t climiddie,
even if I did noe?
Maybe. Or maybe you need to catch up on some things, so the mania fades
and start reading what you’re in here telling people.
Guys, I need help with this know-it-all sophist:
My response: Kinetic energy is the energy of motion not heat. So most of the energy is lost due to motion. Any heat captured by the CO2 molecule is absorbed by adjacent molecules by collision and then dissipated. There is no GHE. Even if the atmosphere contained zero CO2 the air would still be warm. N2 and O2 retain heat just as any other molecule.
James Owens )K-I-A): You’ve never had a chemistry class with basic exploration of ideal gases.
Yes, the kinetic energy of gas molecules is heat.
Go back to Bernoulli in the 1730s for the origins
Help me with how to respond to this. Thanks!
Here is another comment from a sophist:
Ok. Its fantastic to have the ability to communicate with a person from another planet. This Internet thing is fantastic.
Btw, on the earth where I live (3’rd planet from the Star we call sun) our laws of physics make gasses such as CO2, H2O, CH4, O3 and similar actually absorb photon within a certain frequency thus exiting the molecule to a higher Energy level. The de-exitation is done either by collision with another molecule (thus increasing it’s kinetic energy) or by emitting a photon in any given direction (also downwards to earth). Although a bit simplified, it describes the process of the GHE (Green House Effect).
I wish I had the expertise to give a good rebuttal.
George, talking about energy and gas molecules can get confusing, quickly. That’s why it’s always important to get them to define what they are talking about. I try to use “internal energy” for the energy within the molecule. For the motion of the molecule itself, I like to use “kinetic energy”. Although, different people would prefer different terminologies, so it’s best to clearly define each.
In my usage, both kinetic energy (translational motion of the gas molecule) and internal energy contribute to temperature.
Also, make them define what they mean by “Greenhouse Effect”. The IPCC clearly has CO2 as warming the surface. Just absorbing and emitting infrared is NOT the GHE. Just absorbing and emitting can not warm a system. A bowl of fruit absorbs infrared. The Warmists are then stuck with the unreal scenario of heating their houses in winter with a bowl of fruit.
One more thought, George.
A good debate technique is to get them to state, in less than 100 words, how atmospheric CO2 can “warm the planet”–no links, no references, just in their own words. Typically, they won’t even attempt. But, if they do, then you just point out all of the violations of the laws of physics:
* CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. It brings no new energy into the system.
* CO2 can NOT “trap heat”.
* “Cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
* The atmosphere is NOT a “blanket”. A blanket is a “passive” device. The atmosphere is a thermodynamically active system, regulating Earth’s temperature via multiple mechanisms.
(There’s more, but I wanted to keep it under 100 words.)
Geran, thanks for your reply. I replied to the second person with a link to Dr. Charles Anderson:
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/10/thermal-radiation-basics-and-their.html
and told him to reply to him. He came back with stating that Harry Dale Huffman’s blog is not scientifically correct. He said this:
I saw that link and looked at it. The only problem with Harry Huffmans post it is that the info within is scientifically not correct. There are a few links out there describing the real world situation, and this one is quite good:
http://joannenova.com.au/20…
The link to Joanne Nova’s site has a guest post from Michael Hammer claiming there is a greenhouse effect on Venus therefore the GHE exists in reality. I have looked at it but am not convinced.
What do you very astute guys say about this one? Thanks for all your replies!
“the kinetic energy of gas molecules is heat”
This is simply the dumbest thing I have seen a climate sophist write in a long, long time. This isn’t even high school, or it is in a really, really bad and imprecise way, definitely totally useless and contradictory to actual physics. F these people.
My advice for dealing with them is to pray for them to die.
“The de-exitation is done either by collision with another molecule (thus increasing it’s kinetic energy) or by emitting a photon in any given direction (also downwards to earth). Although a bit simplified, it describes the process of the GHE (Green House Effect).”
The downward emitted photon cannot warm the surface if the surface is warmer. 1st Law of Thermodynamics. No GHE.
George asks “What do you very astute guys say about this one?
I think you need to do more research before asking such questions.
1) Dr. Anderson and Harry Huffman are not the same people. They both understand that AGW/GHE is a hoax. Why are you trying to confuse the two?
2) Joanne Nova has no education in the relevant physics. She believes in the AGW/GHE nonsense. If you spend any time at her blog, you are being misled.
3) Michael Hammer has no education in the relevant physics. He believes in the AGW/GHE nonsense.
For those that are thinking “this guy is attempting to describe standard thermodynamics – nothing more nothing less”, I thank you. For those that are saying this guy has got it completely wrong – I apologise that my attempts to describe standard thermodynamics was inadequate.
Let’s take the simplest model – the plane parallel model (simple because we don’t have to consider the diminishment of the radiant energy density at the rate of 1/R^2 that would be necessary in the spherical model).This single plate has an infinite area (on both of it’s two sides). Each surface is a perfect blackbody (so it’s emissivity=1). This single plate is constructed such that it has a power-generating source uniformly with it. The power being generated by the single plate causes it to have a temperature of T WARM. The plate is dissipating all of that power at a rate of radiant exitance of; σ T WARM^4 Watts / m^2 into to a vacuum of an ambient 0K (sink) environment, and will have a radiant energy density of; a T WARM ^4 Joules /m^3 immediately above both of it’s surfaces.
What could a simpler, and we’re all now set to go forward…
Another single plate is introduced into the scenario, in parallel to the first plate. In construction, this second plate is not dissimilar to the first plate: it is constructed of a perfect conducting material and both it’s surfaces are blackbody surfaces. The only difference, in fact, is that this second plate is passive, it has no power source of it’s own and it has an initial temperature of 0K.
So what do we expect to see;
Initially, the first plate will continue to radiate on both it’s surfaces at σ T WARM^4 Watts / m^2 on both it’s surfaces.
The radiant energy density of σ T WARM^4 Watts / m^2 will be imposed upon the ‘inside’ surface of the second plate and the radiant exitance from the first plate will arrive at the receiving surface of the second plate and will all be absorbed, and the radiant energy conveyed by these photons will be thermalized upon the ‘inside’ surface of the second plate. According to the specific heat capacity of the material used to construct the second plate, this will result in kinetic energy increase on that inside surface, and this will manifest in an increase in the temperature of that inside surface. Because we’ve said that the material inside the second plate is a perfect conductor, that increase in temperature will be conveyed uniformly to the ‘outside’ surface of the second plate and, for the first time, the ‘outside’ surface of this second plate will have kinetic energy and will have a temperature. Becase there was no radiant energy density being imposed upon the second surface of the second plate, the outside surface will be at liberty to emit photons at a radiant exitance rate of σ T ^4 Watts / m^2 (and these photons will establish a radiant energy density of a T WARM ^4 Joules /m^3 immediately above it’s surface (and which will extend into the infinity of space, at the speed of light).
The difference in the incoming radiant energy received on the ‘inside’ surface to the radiant emitted on the ‘outside’ surface of the second plate is held as kinetic energy with the material of the second plate.
But that described only what happened initially – hopefully there was no controversy there.
In the second instance of time, the first plate is able to emit it’s radiant at the rate of; σ T ^4 Watts / m^2 on it’s 0K exposed side but will emit it’s radiant exitance on the surface facing the second plate at a rate of; σ (T WARM^4 – T OTHER ^4) Watts / m^2.
NOTE
1. I know this the point in the story where Geran and I part company on agreement. He says that the powered plate can emit, unhindered, at a radiant exitance of σ T ^4 Watts / m^2 irrespective of it’s surroundings, but Joe has said that the radiative heat transfer equation between two objects of different temperatures is = ɛ σ (T WARM^4 – T OTHER ^4) Watts / m^2.
2. I prefer to use the term radiant exitance because the clue is in the title: it’s the power / m^2 that’s leaving the warmer object. If the terms T WARM and T OTHER were reversed (to determine the radiant exitance from the cooler object we’d get a negative value – showing no radiant existance was leaving the surface of the other object but all was arriving and being thermalized into that surface as kinetic energy.
Still in that second instance of time, the power generated internally within the second plate has to be accounted for. The radiant exitance emitted from side exposed to 0K will be the same as the first instance, but the side facing the other plate, now at T OTHER, will be less than the first instance. The ‘excess’ energy that is not emitted as radiant exitance, MUST be accounted for, and this is done when I say that this “excess” energy generated within the first plate is converted to kinetic energy within the first plate i.e. it’s internal temperature will increase, admittedly the amount will be unperceivable and will depend upon the specific heat capacity of the material within the first plate, it will increase.
NOTE
1. I know this is the point in the story where I part company from everybody else on this attending site (with the exception of just Allen Eltor and his “three internally rocks”),
2. Furthermore, I know this is the part in the story where I part company from Alarmists and Lukewarmers because they erroneously believe that the increase in internal temperature of the first plate would be caused by back-radiation from the second plate. There is NO SUCH THING.
Over the next series of instances, the second plate will get warmer and warmer, and the first plate will also get warmer and warmer (the second plate at a vastly quicker rate) but there will be a temperature differential between the 0K facing side and the side facing the second plate (the difference will be determined by the conductivity of the first plate) Eventually, both surfaces facing the 0K environment will be at the same temperature as each other and two surfaces facing each other will be at an identical temperature and the kinetic energy gradient between these surfaces across the plate will be determined by the conductivity of the material used in the plate’s own construction.
NOTE
1. It is this point in the story when I part company with my regard for the early pioneers of radiative heat transfer. They chose to avoid such scenarios, preferring instead to work with examples where thermodynamic equilibrium had been established. The example above eventually reaches a steady-state but the two objects themselves are not in thermal equilibrium within themselves. Cleary we’re now in territory that the early pioneers feared to tread.
The example of the internally powered sphere surrounded by a cooler shell constructed of an insulating material more easily demonstrates how the sphere must get hotter so as to allow the external surface of the shell to radiate all of the energy generated from within the sphere.
It was Allen Eltor’s earlier posting, when he challenged us to think about the differing internal temperatures of his two rocks within a box, each with an internal 10W power supply that confirmed to me that I was on the correct line of thought.
Joe: Please can you forward my email address to both Geran and Allen Eltor: if they are interested, they can then request from me the essay in which I describe my ‘enlightened’ understanding.
Steve. it just so happens I put a lot of effort into explaining this “plates” issue, on another blog, several months ago. What I learned was that those folks that want to believe in the GHE, will not give up their “plates”. You can not convince them their “science” is wrong. They seem to understand that if their “plates” fail, their GHE fails. (They are unaware that the GHE nonsense failed when it first started!)
So, you are interesting because you apparently know the GHE is bogus, yet you accept the “plates”. It’s like you know to go in the right direction, but you’re getting on a bus going in the other direction. I’m hoping I can get you on the right bus.
First, here are some things for your consideration:
BLACK BODY A “black body” (BB) is an imaginary concept. There are real objects that are very close to “perfect” black bodies, so we are able to verify the S/B Law. But the problem with the imaginary concept is the definition that a black body MUST absorb all wavelengths. That definition helps make classroom examples much easier. It is not a problem, until it is used to violate established LAWS.
For example, suppose you have a BB plate at 100 ºC. Then, you bring another BB at 50 ºC in close proximity to the first plate. If you continue believing that the 100 ºC plate will absorb photons from the 50 ºC plate, then you have accepted a “definition” over established laws of physics.
So you must be very cautious when using the concept of a BB. The laws of physics SUPERCEDE definitions. (In real life, I can’t “define” that I am the most sexually attractive male on the planet. I would like that definition, but the laws of nature dictate otherwise.)
ALL PHOTONS ARE NOT ALWAYS ABSORBED. This is a simple fact that is denied by Warmists and Lukewarmers. But, even without understanding physics, it is easy to verify.
A sheet of ice, with an area of 1 square meter, emits about 300 Watts, infrared. So, 10 square meters would emit 3000 Watts total. A small room heater puts out about 1500 Watts. So if someone claims all photons are always absorbed, ask them why they don’t warm their room, in winter, with blocks of ice. All photons are not always absorbed.
Now, back to the “plates”.
The example you see most on the Internet is with your first (powered) plate receiving 400 Watts. All by itself, at equilibrium, it would then be at a temperature of 244 K, emitting 200 Watts from each surface. I think everyone would agree so far.
Now, the Warmists and Lukewarmers would say that adding the second plate raises the temperature of the first plate to 262 K. They justify this increase in temperature by claiming the second plate returns infrared to the first plate (back-radiation). Essentially, they are re-using energy. That’s not how it works.
Here’s the correct solution to the “plates” problem:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
geran, thanks for your response. I’m sorry my writing wasn’t as clear as I intended. I know Dr. Anderson and Mr. Huffman are two different people! I have both there sites bookmarked. I was trying to say that the sophists that I was interacting with had them confused with each other.
The later point I was trying to make was i wanted a critique on Mike Hammer’s guest article on Jo Nova’s site (I’m aware of her leanings). He was persuasive in his presentation but Mr. Huffman appeared to adequately rebut him in the comment section.
I try to do as much research on my own before asking any questions and appreciate the feedback. I am not trying to bore anyone. I’m like a rookie in A-ball looking up at the major leaguers. But look out, I have some tools of my own. LOL
Hi everyone! I absolutely love the ability to follow discussion on this website, but it’s incredibly difficult to consume such content as I am having to try to organize inside my gmail inbox. Any chance we could create a slack channel and have a more organized way of discussion and perhaps membership based on approval versus free for all as that helps to have more rational discussions?
I think if you want to pursue a certain line of discussion, then YOU have to lead it. Ask, re-ask, focus, re-focus, ask for clarification, … in other words, work for it, … YOU direct it, rather than opting for a rigid, heavily moderated, restricted membership, with lots of rules to hold people in line.
That’s not what this is, and I think that you will find that such a format usually cayuses any participation to die pretty quickly.
“cayuses” = “causes”
George says: “He [Hammer] was persuasive in his presentation…”
Aren’t con-artists always persuasive?
George says: “…but Mr. Huffman appeared to adequately rebut him…”
Well there you go, George. You’ve just done your own critique.
Here’s a Jo Nova quote, from wiki:
“…carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that adding more to it will warm the planet, yes, absolutely, that’s all well proven solid science known for years, yes. I have no disagreement with any of that.”
Is she dishonest or incompetent?
You should post a comment at her blog asking for her “solid science”. As i suggested, in a comment above: “A good debate technique is to get them to state, in less than 100 words, how atmospheric CO2 can ‘warm the planet’–no links, no references, just in their own words.”
Let us know how long you last.
I’m the reason for the Hammer paper’s existence. I kept going over to Jo Nova under many different account names
discussing the real laws of atmospheric chemistry and the real principles of thermodynamics overall,
and that _blankin_ fake whore kept banning me
for saying a cold nitrogen bath is never a heater.
So – this had come to pass over several years, and I had been spreading the news of Harry’s observations on how those people don’t do the compression warming part of figuring out the atmospheric.
Finally over a period of about a month I cursed her up one side and down the other for being a fraud barking
science darkening
magical gaissiness hawking
“a cold nitrogen atmosphere dunt turn’t intwo uh HeeDur” squealing
fake.
Obviously there’s nothing she can say so – she asked the Hammer clown to
“POAST ME UH REELE REELE SiGNTSiE THRED
WHAT MAKES FUN UV THE RAIGHT WAY TO
CALKYEW
LAYTECHEW
SUM TiMP urCHURZ
fer PLANNiTS.”
That lyin’ fraud barking bitch
is the Australian version of “Fat Tony” Watts.
She thinks a COLD NITROGEN BATH became a HEATER because a MAN MADE FUN of the OBVIOUSLY CORRECT WAY to CALCULATE PLANETARY TEMPERATURES, because –
HARRY GETS the TEMPERATURE of THE PLANETS he’s TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT.
To BELIEVE the GHGs HEAT the PLANET you HAVE to BELIEVE a COLD NITROGEN BATH’S LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERANTS, knocking 22ish % off the TOP before your actual calculations even START
after REFRACTING 22% of total sunlight to SPACE,
subsequently
SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATES that 22% BACK from – NOWHERE
and then, having done THAT,
heats the ENTIRE EARTH and COLD NITROGEN BATH 33 degrees.
Again: from – W H E R E?
WHERE? WHERE does the ENERGY COME FROM to OVERCOME the – OBVIOUSLY
CORRECTLY, FULLY SUBTRACTED 22%?
That energy isn’t COUNTED, it’s AC-COUNTED being REFRACTED not THERMALIZED, to SPACE – which is WHY
even
MAGIC GASSERS
do E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. what YOU, and I, and EVERYBODY ELSE on THIS left-leaning PLANET DOES
when THEY proceed to ACCOUNT the TEMPERATURE of Earth:
Subtract EVERY single PHOTON from THOSE GHG-INTERCEPTED TRUE/FAR-RED infra
AS WELL as EVERY SINGLE PHOTON from those GHG INTERCEPTED NEAR infra & VISIBLE spectra
and X THEM the F***K OUT
of ALL FURTHER CONSIDERATION
as BEING AVAILABLE as
INPUT
into CALCULATION regarding the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET.
I’m sorry to have been responsible for having that evil lying bitch and fraud barking w***
put up that hit piece on the PROPER WAY to CALCULATE TEMPERATURES of PLANETS
but it’s just another day in the life of what’s called FREEDOM.
FREEDOM is some TACKY, MIGRAINE PRODUCING SHIT.
Not HYPOTHETICALLY – IT IS.
But when you consider the alternative… there it is. SO.
That’s all there is to it, that’s how that got up there, I was going over there for years, and she was deleting my posts for years, and talking SHIT about how “REAL SIGNTSIE FOLK,
DON’T LISTEN to NO FUNNIE SOWNDIN CLAYMES,
that A COLD NITCHURGIN BATH,
AIN’T
no HEEDUR.”
That’s a DIRECT copy-pasted QUOTE from that evil b**ch and FRAUD.
Finally I cursed the b**ch,
her FAKE mathematician HUSBAND
and her MODERATORS whoever they may have been,
for BEING the EQUIVALENT of WILLIS ESCHENBACH
and ANTHONY WATTS.
Peace
geran, ok, ok, I get your point loud and clear. LOL I am not a glutton for punishment. Thanks again for your time in replying.
Joseph there’s a thread in moderation, due to foul language, when you see what I was talking about you’ll see why I got so pee’d off. I don’t really find a thrill cursing some b**** out in fully spelled curses like that especially if it’s somebody else’s place, if you care to, maybe you might wanna just all my curse words, asterisk out?
My bad Homie.
The thead I posted up tells how the Hammer paper got where it is guys it’s no big deal to any of you, I was just telling the story and got pissed.
George there’s another guy named Tony Heller. He was a very early programmer and chip debugger for Intel when they were rising through some of the more prodigious improvements, in chip technology in – I dunno, I guess the ..90s? and 2,000s? Anyway Intel put up a brass plaque to this dude, with his name yO,
– CAST into this BRASS and cement PEDESTAL type deal
DEDICATED to him
NAMING him, saying “dedicated to TONY “The DEBUG GOD” HELLER, yadaYaDa,
special talent for sortin’ stuff out like rarely another mufus”
“on the planet.” That’s just who this dude is and he got suspicious that – did the story about the
yew noez, Yaw,
magicalnesses,
of the
gaissinesses,
whut dun turn’t a coald nitchurgin bath in two uh HeeDuR,
hold together?
Now – he’d been talkin about it online, after work, I think he actually was retired, but – online, casually, he was in some kinda science forums and was explaining it to people, about how “thin thair come uh poWuRFul an’ MaGiCaLNeSS uh GAiSSiNESS,” and – he figured he needed to update his natural sciences chops, when someone mentioned to him a paper,
that NASA had published in 1967, when they finally got a radar platform to fly past Venus,
and pop some shots down into the hole there, – the hole in visibility because the thing’s covered with these SUPER light-blocking clouds, consisting of mainly, some sulfuric acid, that’s risen from the surface, and finally condensed back into molecular sulfur/sulfate I guess, but the main story is
NASA asked this guy – a famous -eventually – author and “big werds tawkur” bowt thim signtsie thangs, Carl Sagan,
to jot his understanding of atmospheric chemistry and energy down and – since he BELIEVED in and BARKED about a “magical gaissiness what dun turnt a coldurncoldur in two a hoddurnhoddur maker”
NASA asked Carl Sagan to put down his ESTIMATED temperature for Venus’ SURFACE,
based on the recent RADAR platform they flew by, sending back data about the ~approximate~
diameter of the stone planet, there beneath it’s SUPER dense body of mainly, carbon dioxide.
All this carbon dioxide gas, has leaked out of the rocks below George, along with some water and sulfuric acid as things are in (whatever)hydrate form, where the elements for water are in a substance, in proper proportion but the substance is in solid form. Well, when you add energy and all this stuff goes from solid, locked-up substance with a long list of reasons why things don’t move freely, to a liquid even – obviously sometimes water forms. So – this atmosphere you can’t see through it and everybody wondered what the temperature on the surface was in 1967 when the world’s absolutely most rigorous scientists were probing their local multiverse with the electronics of the times. These guys were NO f***n around, but – they wanted Sagan to commit to his claims so
they asked him to just submit a paper – detailing the temperature and approximate pressure of the atmosphere, as far as their various expertise had given them hints, to these values. You know how it is, overlapping observations, then coming to conclusions, and – Sagan obliged.
And again George this was 196_blankin_7, where – you had to have a crew cut and horned rimmed glasses and a slide rule, to even get off the highway to take the road, to GET to the road, to get to NASA’s gate.
Lo and behold, NASA PUBLISHES the PAPER. In 1967. From memory maybe, “Harvard Journal of Astrophysics volume 149 (maybe 49) September 1967, pgs 730 thru 731. Carl Sagan, Temperature of Venus, N.A.S.A.
Fast forward to ten years ago. Tony Heller, online, sees someone post a link to this paper.
He reads it. He starts thinking to himself, – correctly, that – NASA would never have published that paper completely unedited, if Sagan’s methods weren’t proper. And in fact George,
NASA considered Sagan’s guess about base temperature on Venus to be THEIR OFFICIAL GUESS – and then Sagan had his own like… 2% or something he tacked on because he was tripping on mescaline while having a three-way with hippie chicks or whatever the F*** led him to write that “magicalness of gaissiness,” yadayada and end up with “a magical heater, YaW!”
Geroge: the whole paper’s a page and a half long or so. See where I put pages 730-731? The pages aren’t black with ink where everything’s covered. Actually maybe 2 pages but as I recall it’s like a total of a PAGE and a HALF
to SOLVE for the TEMPERATURE of VENUS’ SURFACE
TO N.A.S.A’s SATISFACTION
about the most EXCITING INTER-PLANETARY EVENT of the DECADE.
Tony – sees this is true and thinks – “I’ve been talking about this and I keep finding things I don’t think are right. Now – here’s PROOF of what NASA CONSIDERS the CORRECT CALCULATIONS
and – FAR from being COMPLICATED – it takes only about a PAGE or two to explain WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION added.”
So Tony Heller decides to explore “Climate Sewer” called “Climate science” and it’s so f***n bad,
that before he’ll blog on it online,
he starts for himself a FAKE NAME: “Steve Goddard.”
Now. As Steve Goddard he starts talking about how it’s all fake. He tells people, it’s because of people being smeared and fired and having their lives destroyed by speaking out on these CRIMINAL government employees, SCAM, that makes him use the Pseudonym and shortly he abandons it, but in the meantime,
he publishes two articles where he GOES OVER N.A.S.A.’s *obviously APPROVED*
mathematical process
for guessing Venus’ surface temperature, atmospheric density @ surface, all this –
And HE calculates Venus’ temperature right alongside Sagan/NASA and notes that –
JUST like PEOPLE had been SAYING – there was NO GREEN HOUSE EFFECT on VENUS,
at ALL.
The SCAM’S FAKE, FLAGSHIP OBJECT De BULLSHooT.
NOT only NONE George
but just like you’ve been seeing me say a long time now – IT’S ATMOSPHERE is actually COOLER than if there were ATMOSPHERIC AIR in PLACE of that ATMOSPHERE.
Because – CO2 HOLDS less ENERGY than ATMOSPHERIC AIR,
as shown in R of the CHART of LAW of SPECIFIC HEATS of GASES,
which chart is PART II of the LAW * not ONE of the laws, THE LAW *
written for solving gas hence atmospheric matter-energy relationships,
the Ideal Gas Law with it’s TWO PART CONSTRUCTION:
The EQUATION of the Law which is PV =nRT
and the “Chart of SPECIFIC HEATS of GASES”
He PUBLISHES this George on the website WUWT before FAT TONY revealed that he was a DETERMINED electric cars on Ebay peddling
MAGIC GASSER and SCIENCE DESTROYER.
Watts published the article,
AND a subsequent one, with the FIRST being named
“Steve Goddard: Hyperventilating on Venus”
and the second follow up article named
“Steve Goddard: Venus Envy.
Now both of these are very short George so you’ve gotta realize what you’re looking at.
You’re looking at the line of provenance
showing everything Harry Huffman shows you is also true
cause it’s all
effectively
identical.
NASA approved it since they PUBLISHED it –
then Sagan’s OWN understanding of how to correctly calculate the PROPER base temp
which NASA published – again as their BEST GUESS on EARTH
for the actual temp of Venus’ surface,
then we watch Tony as Steve Goddard go over it all AGAiN,
and THEN George
I want you to go to CTRL F on your keyboard on those two article pages
and type in
LUBOS MOTL
ok? His NAME is IN the COMMENTS in one of those threads George.
And HE at that time, (ten or whatever, years ago) was working,
for HARVARD,
as a PHYSICIST.
And he came into the thread comments about halfway down, and typed
“Steve YOUR WORK is in ERROR
I am going to REVIEW this ARTICLE on my OWN PERSONAL BLOG ,
“LUBOS MOTL: the reference frame” and DEBUNK YOU 😉 ”
signed, Lubos Motl.
Ok so – when you go over THERE,
MOTL takes Tony Heller’s article apart,
***AND CONCLUDES HELLER IS RIGHT: THERE’S no GREENHOUSE EFFECT, on VENUS.”
Shortly thereafter, Lubos Motl left his employment at Harvard even though he had HEDGED and HIM’d and HAW’d and TRIED to CRAWFISH AROUND about MAGICAL ENERGY that doesn’t exist but “COULD” – he AGREES that
*HELLER is RIGHT.*
So – these values – the temperature of the Earth,
the temperature of Venus,
MATCH THE KNOWN-GOOD International Standard Atmosphere’s VALUES closely,
with no FAKE ”33 DuGREEZ uh THURM-a-DYE-NaMiCKZ ViGHLAYT’n FAKE SiGNTS”
for Earth,
and they match
the NOW KNOWN-GOOD & verified PROJECTIONS of VENUS’ temperature
using the IDENTICAL MATHEMATICS, PHYSICS, and LAWS,
they used to FLY there.
That they later used, to
REMOTELY LAND 13 CRAFT
some of them the size of a dune buggy,
on VENUS.
Again: REMOTELY
ACCURATELY PREDICTING TEMP/DENSITY using the very TECHNIQUES you’re WATCHING an entire STRING of people use:
Sagan
NASA
HELLER
HUFFMAN
MOTL
and EVERYBODY READING the ONLINE WORK
of either HUFFMAN
OR Heller.
Notice NOBODY has any COMPLAINTS, upon
SEEING the PAPER published by NASA/Sagan in ’67.
*HARDLY a BLANKING SOUL*
VENTURES to GO FACE the PEOPLE and TELL THEM they’re WRONG.
THE ONE who DID – LUBOS MOTL – LIMPED OFF ADMITTING,
ALL THOSE PEOPLE
are RIGHT.
I meant “cast his name in BRONZE” above, sorry, I try to rattle these off between yard work and trying to tire out my grandson for my wife, while she does things, etc
So you can see just how swiftly some dipsh** HiCK
is SLAMMED to the floor, upon even SEEING
NASA
Sagan
Heller
Huffman
* * *THE CALCULATIONS LEADING TO THE STANDARD ATMOSPHERE* * *
WHICH INCLUDE NO
“MAGICAL GAISSINESS of HEEDuRiZiN”
You can SEE how SWIFTLY it becomes critical to shut down/shut out
ALL DISCUSSION about Hammer’s FAKE PAPER
that claims Harry is WRONG
and then
BY DIRECT ASSOCIATION
since HARRY says what NASA said, effectively –
that there’s a correct way to solve for a gas temperature –
He’s saying SAGAN was wrong
He’s saying NASA in ’67 were wrong
He’s saying HELLER is wrong
He’s saying LUBOS MOTL is wrong
***HE’S SAYING the INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ATMOSPHERE is WRONG***
EVERYBODIE’S RAWNG, BUT THIM
SMART FELLURS,
wat NOES bowt how “thim MAGICAL GAISSES
has got MAGIC HEEDURISMS.”
Hammer’s an intellectually invalid HICK.
He’s a sh** for brains HicK
with a ”STORY to TAYLE bowt how
“AWL thim FELLURZ at NASA in 1967
didn’t KNOW how to CALCYALAYT the” TiM PuR CHuRe” of VENUS.”
And how Carl Sagan didn’t know the correct way.
And how Tony Heller doesn’t know the correct way,
And how Lubos Motl doesn’t know the correct way,
and how ALLLLLL those READERS looking over SIMPLE ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE CALCULATION PRINCIPLES,
MISSED just like NASA the
“FACT about the MAGICAL GAISSINESS bein “TWO DEAP THAWTS FUR JIST REG’LUR FELLURS, WHAT ain’t BULEEVURZ sechas thim fellurs down two the NASA an WHaTNoT”
“Magic gas barking,
science darkening,
backerdistically befuddled,
shameless, brains-less”
maggot
is the best term for Michael Hammer the FAKE, as an “intellect.”
What that dumb son of a b*** calculates
is the “CHiMP’uR’tCHUR” of Venus.
HE’S SAYING THE THERMOMETERS ON THAT MAGELLAN SPACECRAFT HUFFMAN USED,
JUST for ILLUSTRATION cause he KNEW where to find the ARCHIVED DATA for that ONE SHIP –
if I recall right Magellan mighta been the FIRST ONE that actually had THERMAL equipment. The first one or two or whatever just had maybe radar and exotic radiation gear? I can’t remember, but – in any case,
MICHAEL HAMMER TOLD YOU STOP LOOKING at THE CHART with the THERMOMETER READINGS and the GAS LAW PREDICTIONS OVERLAPPING EXACTLY,
HARRY’S a DUM-DUM
for REALIZING the
UNASSAILABLE REALITY THAT
THE THERMOMETERS
are RIGHT
hence
THE THERMOMETER MANUFACTURER
were RIGHT
hence
THE PEOPLE WHO TESTED the THERMOMETERS
before they LAUNCHED them
were RIGHT,
and
the FLIGHT ENGINEERS who FLEW through the ATMOSPHERE
PERFECTLY using the proper gas law TO PREDICT
TEMPERATURE & DENSITY
were RIGHT
and
the PEOPLE who use the nearly IDENTICAL formulas for EARTH’S
KNOWN-CORRECT TEMPERATURE
are RIGHT
and
the PEOPLE who FLY AIRCRAFT through ***THIS*** planet’s atmosphere
USING these IDENTICAL GAS LAW PARAMETERS
are RIGHT,
but
HARRY’S a DUM-DUM for CONCLUDING – IT MUST BE RIGHT to THINK
the TEMPERATURE
where we LANDED 13 CRAFT and SENT BACK THERMOMETER DATA
which we then
COMPARED TO GAS LAW
and FOUND PREDICTED nearly EXACTLY – from MILLIONS and MILLIONS
of miles away
– HARRY’S a DUM DUM for BELIEVING that BECAUSE the LAWS of PHYSICS and
the INSTRUMENTS TO CHECK THEM are RIGHT,
the INSTRUMENTS to CHECK them … are RIGHT.
“HOW DARE HARRY NOTICE that WE NEVER CRASHED a SHIP”
“HOW DARE HARRY NOTICE WE NEVER SAW a CRAFT with UNUSUAL DATA”
“HOW DARE HARRY NOTICE that from THERMAL SENSOR # 1 WE SENT THERE
the THERMOMETERS matched IDENTICALLY the PROJECTIONS MADE
BY the FLIGHT ENGINEERS, using PROPER gas law, for PROPER TEMPERATURE projection.
HOW DARE HARRY REMIND PEOPLE that
SCIENTISTS CHECKED,
and VENUS obeys the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS we USED
to GO OVER THERE and CHECK.
That’s that stupid B*** Joanne Nova’s version of ”THAT’S HOW SIGNTS WERKS.”
“F** those SPACECRAFT FLYING on that GAS LAW and those METERS MATCHING TOO.”
“THIS GUY HERE’S GOT ANOTHER STORY ABOUT HOW COLD BATHS are HEATERS.”
“LISTEN to HIM.”
“NOT THERMOMETERS and OVERLAPPING the LAW for GAS TEMPS to CHECK.
Jo Nova says “THAT’S STEWPID”
“WEA GOT USSUH
SIGNTSIE FELLUR HERE,
AND HE’LL RAIGHT about thim
MAGICAL GAISSINESS FOR US, FER FREE!!”
Just think about how STUPID you have to be,
to be running a COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
for ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY and ENERGY
and upon hearing that GREAT NEWS!
THE CLAIMS about there being a
GREENHOUSE EFFECT on VENUS
are FINALLY CHECKED, since about
1972 (or whatever, sorry guys)
and THOSE SAYING there IS NO GHE on VENUS
are RIGHT!! LOOK! This is how the FLIGHT ENGINEERS
KNEW how FAST to FLY,
by using the SAME GAS LAW
we use to FLY here on EARTH –
and to SET the CORRECT TEMPERATURE
so all our INSTRUMENTS
and our
FLIGHT MODIFICATION DYNAMICS
operate!
You couldn’t FLY and LAND craft if you didn’t have VERY
VERY good INFO for TEMPERATURE. (Hence density)
Imagine what a despicable DELUSIONAL CRETIN
you’d have to be
to subsequently go
FIND some f***ing HACK
to TELL the ENTIRE WORLD,
that
SPACECRAFT FLYING and LANDING successfully
with THERMAL SENSORS
and LAWS of GAS TEMPERATURE
predicting it to be COOLER there – not warmer
thanif Venus had OUR ATMOSPHERE –
it’s all MEANINGLESS to YOU, the READER.
It’s all MEANINGLESS that 13 SEPARATE CRAFT
landing on the SURFACE of that planet
using the SAME GAS LAWS for the SENSORS
sent back DATA-STREAMS SHOWING TEMPERATURE
following ***PREDICTIONS of Venus being COOLER***
than Earth
not WARMER than if Earth’s atmosphere
were there. Yeah. no problems for our
LYING BULLSHIT.
“I simply DIRECT YOU ALL TO IGNORE that MAN
POINTING THIS OUT
and LISTEN to THIS man.
He’s never WORKED in
atmospheric chemistry,
He’s never had a f***ng WELDER’S class
or even
an Air CONDITIONING guy’s class,
so
*HE *CAN’T *TELL *YOU the *NAME of the LAW*
governing
GAS temperatures
hence,
the ATMOSPHERIC temperature.
But HE FEELS QUALIFIED to TELL YOU
IGNORE FLIGHT ENGINEERS’ and
THERMAL SENSOR READINGS
of CRAFT SENT BEFORE he was BORN
to CHECK a STORY he DIDN’T KNOW
we would ever be able to CHECK,
He OUTRIGHT TELLS YOU: IGNORE the LAW,
and
THERMOMETERS OVERLAPPING EXACTLY,
and
BOTH SHOWING the temp COOLER than
EARTH’s atmosphere would be if there.
Yew cain’t BU LEAVE NO GAiS LAW
Yew cain’t BU LEAVE thim THERMOMETERS
YEW nead two
LISSIN two
THIS HEEYUR FELLUR,
HE
knows BETTER
than the THERMOMETERS
we sent to CHECK if he KNOWS
wtF he’s TALKING about.
“IGNORE those METERS they SENT to CHECK my PREDICTIONS,
THEY CAN’T KNOW as WELL AS I CAN,because
ALL THEY DID
was
FLY over to VENUS
and CHECK
my FU**inG QUACK STORY
with SPACESHIPS
fitted with REAL
not THEORETICAL
THERMOMETERS.”
==============
Can you IMAGINE being SO STUMP-EVIL STUPID,
that upon HEARING there are SPACECRAFT
sent to take
T.H.E.R.M.A.L.
R.E.A.D.I.N.G.S.
to CHECK her LYING
FRAUDULENT
BULLSHIT,
YOUR FIRST IMPULSE, being dredging up some
NAMELESS, WIT-LESS f***g HACK
on the INTERNET
to WRITE a PAPER saying, ”WE DIDN’T KNOW some men
SENT SPACESHIPS with SENSORS
to CHECK our LUDICROUS,
FRAUDULENT BULLSHIT,”
“…BUT SINCE SOMEBODY DID, I’M SUGGESTING
YOU STOP LISTENING to the MEN
with the THERMAL SENSORS
sent SPECIFICALLY to CHECK my
LYING BULL SHIT
and READ THIS ENDORSEMENT OF my LYING BULLSHIT.”
YOU JUST NEED to FORGET those METER READINGS
AND READ this MAN’S STORY about how YOU CAN’T TRUST
THERMOMETERS SENT to CHECK his LYING BULLSHIT,
YOU CAN trust this innumerate MAN I MET
online, who’s too stupid to NAME the LAW
of PHYSICS that GOVERNS – atmospheric temperatures.
He ASSURES us ALL
that
PROPER USAGE of GAS LAW
has
NOTHING to DO
with
THOSE THERMOMETERS
TRACKING GAS LAW
E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.
“THAY AWL JIST CAiN’T UNNURSTAND.”
That’s the
dipf**k HICK’S battle cry
who can’t tell you the NAME
of the LAW of PHYSICS,
he’s telling you FLIGHT Engineers,
and THERMOMETERS
don’t really know.
The MEN who MOUNTED 25 SPACECRAFT EXPEDITIONS,
at least TWENTY of them
with THERMAL SENSORS
to CHECK
his LYING BULLSHIT
“Don’t understand.”
THAT’S Michael Hammer.
He’s so f***g STUPID he didn’t even KNOW we sent 25 CRAFT to CHECK his ILLITERATE BULLSHIT
But ONCE he found out we HAD, he WROTE us ALL a NOTE telling us the MEN who FLEW 25 SPACECRAFT to VENUS
with SENSORS on them
S.P.E.C.I.F.I.C.A.L.L.Y. to CHECK is IGNORANT, BACKERD@#$ED BULLSH**
DON’T
KNOW
WHAT
THEY
WERE
DOING
because HES BLOGGED ABOUT CLIMATE.
Like…
a lot.
HIS EXCUSES is THEY might have FLOWN to VENUS to CHECK HIS LYING FRAUD,
but HE DIDN’T KNOW THEY DID,
SO – IT’S NOT FAIR YOU KNOW NOW.
Fraud barking, SH**-EATING HicKs.
THAT’S Joanne NOVA: I DIDN’T KNOW THERE WAS GONNA BE A WAY TO CHECK HOW STUPID I AM
So I HAD a MAN WRITE a PAPER
INSTRUCTING YOU ALL,
NOT to KNOW how STUPID I AM,
since
I WAS TOO STUPID
TO WRITE a PAPER saying
I’M NOT as STUPID as I am.
Yeah, I know, hung grammar, non existent editing, not particularly well threaded rants.
If it helps your climate suffering, I’ve had my own climate trauma.
As I tried to blog about climate my grandson has jumped off the bed,
traumatizing my neck as he tries to take me out of the chair sideways,
and
of course
have me catch him, too.
So.. it’s tough all over, guys, I wish I could tell ya it’s not like that..
Allen Eltor: I’m sorry to interrupt your illuminating history lessons but I just want to add one more response to Geran and then I’m done – I’ll return to ‘receiving’ mode.
Geran:
Your diagram in the link: https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/ confirms (to me) that you believe in the concept of back-radiation (even though you say that you don’t) and you’d agree with the use of the term “net” in front of the term radiant energy transfer i.e. photon emission from a surface is not totally inhibited when another warmer object is able to impose it’s own Radiant Energy Density upon that surface. I suspect that you have (incorrectly) come to this conclusion because you have allowed yourself to believe that all objects always radiate to the S-B law. They do not. Assuming that (i) the radiating surface of the Blue plate (the side facing the green plate) and the radiating surface of the Green plate (the one facing the right-hand side of the page) each have an emissivity of 1 AND (ii) the material of Blue plate and Green plate each have a thermal conductivity of 1 AND (iii) the receiving surface of the Blue plate (the side facing the left-hand side of the page) and the receiving surface of the Green plate (the side facing the Blue plate) have an absorptivity of 1 and (iv) only radiant energy transfer applies i.e. no convection, then the correct solution, when all objects in the system are in the steady-state and the left-hand side of the page is emitting it’s radiant exitance of 400W/m^2 to the left-hand side surface of the Blue plate, is as follows:
1. The Radiant Energy Density imposed upon the left-hand side surface of the Blue Plate will be = 5.35 x 10^-6 Joules / m^3.
2. The left-hand side surface of the Blue Plate will absorb (and thermalize) 400W/m^2 from the left-hand side of the page,
3. 400W/m^2 will be conducted across the red-facing surface to the green-facing surface of the Blue plate. The internal temperature of the Blue plate will be = 290K
4. The green-facing surface of the Blue Plate will emit radiant exitance of 400W/m^2 to the blue-facing surface of the Green plate.
5. The Radiant Energy Density generated above the green-facing surface of the Blue Plate will be = 5.35 x 10^-6 Joules / m^3.
6. The Radiant Energy Density imposed upon the blue-facing surface of the Green Plate will be = 5.35 x 10^-6 Joules / m^3.
7. The blue-facing surface of the Green Plate will absorb (and thermalize) the radiant exitance of 400W/m^2 from the green-facing surface of the Blue plate),
8. 400W/m^2 will be conducted across the blue-facing surface to the right-hand surface of the Green plate. The internal temperature of the Green plate will be = 290K
9. The right-hand side surface of the Green Plate will emit radiant exitance of 400W/m^2 to the right-hand side of the page.
10. The Radiant Energy Density generated above the right-hand side surface of the Green Plate will be = 5.35 x 10^-6 Joules / m^3.
I admit that my initial calculations included the equation for radiant exitance = σ (T BLUE ^4 – T GREEN ^4) which (incorrectly) suggested that there was zero radiant energy flowing between these two plates, when clearly there’s 400W/m^2 flowing uniformly in one direction, from Blue Plate to Green Plate. The applicability of the radiant exitance equation between two objects now appears to have another limitation that, until now, I hadn’t appreciated was there.
Finally, to summarise my (interesting?) position;
1. I don’t believe in the RGHE because the concept of back-radiation is FALSE. The justification for the belief in back-radiation is destroyed when it is understood that the Radiant Energy Density imposed upon a cool surface from a warmer object will inhibit ALL photon emissions from that cool surface.
2. I have recently (in the last few months) become convinced that a warm, power-generating, object can be made warmer by the insertion of a cooler object placed between the warm object and an object that is even colder than the cool object. The degree of temperature increase experienced by the warm object is determined by (i) the absorptivity of the warm-facing surface and (ii) the conductivity of the material and (iii) the emissivity of the colder-facing surface of the inserted COOL object.
3. Both the plane parallel and spherical shell thought-experiments are not, in any way, a physical representation of Earth’s geometry. Furthermore, the presence of Earth’s atmosphere and Earth’s gravity are the true explanation for the entirely false ‘33oC difference’.
Steve, in the middle of your opening paragraph, you indicate you still do not believe the S/B Law. An interesting challenge to you would be to give one example where you believe the S/B Law does NOT apply.
As to your numbered points, I will only address the first two that are wrong. If you can understand what you’re doing wrong, you should be able to correct the rest.
The graphic is color-coded. The red arrow is the incoming flux to the system. The blue arrows represent the flux emitted from the blue plate. The green arrows represent the flux emitted from the green plate. The system is in equilibrium. That means the temperatures of the plates are no longer changing. Consequently, the net energy to each plate is zero. 400 Watts/m^2 enters the system and 400 Watts/m^2 leaves the system. All energy and energy flows are accounted for, as required by 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermo.
Here are your first two mistakes:
1. The Radiant Energy Density imposed upon the left-hand side surface of the Blue Plate will be = 5.35 x 10^-6 Joules / m^3.
Incorrect. The incoming flux (red arrow) to the left side of the blue plate is 400 Watts/m^2. I’m not sure how you came up with the value you did. The S/B constant is 5.67 X 10^-8 Watts/m^2-K^4. The BB flux would then be the S/B constant multiplied by T^4.
3. 400W/m^2 will be conducted across the red-facing surface to the green-facing surface of the Blue plate. The internal temperature of the Blue plate will be = 290K
Incorrect. The blue plate receives 400 Watts/m^2, so it can only emit 400 Watts/m^2. That means 200 Watts/m^2 from each surface. That corresponds to a temperature of 244 K.
Please study the graphic, and my two corrections. If you have questions, I’ll try to assist.
Allen, THANKS for those posts! I got the message! I already knew of Lubos Motl and have him bookmarked. It was extremely enlightening to know that Sagan figured it out in 1967. Drugs must have warped his brain after that to believe that a GHE exists! I do believe Harry Huffman is correct and have seen the gas properties of CO2 on this site:
http://www.calqlata.com/Maths/Formulas_Atmosphere.html
I can see that CO2 would actually be a COOLANT rather than act as an insulator. You guys are great. Joe, thanks for running this blog! I will fight the AGW kooks every chance I can. All they are doing is attempting to destroy western civilization and our economic way of life. It is nothing more than political charade, this climate change BS (yes, the climate changes but humans have little to do with how and why it does). Till next time, God bless everyone here!
@geran
– Finally, someone else is saying this!!! … sheeesh … why do so many people assume that all photons are absorbed, regardless of the conditions? .. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Again, my molecule example, which applies to photons as well as collision and any other interaction between atoms and molecules. It is thusly, and indisputable:
There are no known exceptions to this rule within our known universe. It doesn’t matter if by radiation, collision or any other condition. This statement holds true no matter what. If it did not, our very universe could not exist. Old Dougie can put away his stupid blathering bullshit, along with all the other sophists on the planet. You cannot get around this very fundamental fact and law of nature. Because of this, the so-called “greenhouse effect” is entirely impossible in this universe. Our universe and the “greenhouse effect” cannot coexist! … it is an impossibly!
Doubt what I say? … then prove it! … create a perpetuum mobile! … if what I say weren’t true, it would be trivial to create a perpetuum mobile, but then, you could not exist to do it in the first place.
Given two molecules, molecule A and molecule B. Molecule A can only further excite molecule B, if, and only if, molecule A is of greater energy state (vibrational state, etc..) than molecule B.
A for Atmosphere.molecules
B for molecules
Below
Photon absorbing is in A From B
I will bet Joes house on it.
@Gary … what?…
George – no problem. YouDaMaN,
Hey – don’t leave the concept that the GHGs are insulation.
They are.
They INSULATE the PLANET
from about 22%
of OTHERWISE AVAiLABLE WARMING FiRELiGHT SPECTRA from the SUN,
IMMEDIATELY DROPPING CALCULATED TEMPERATURE that roughly, 22%.
When you ENGAGE them, it should be about the FIRST point you make,
because
the fact they insulate the planet,
IS the POINT.
ONCE they SUBTRACT that FULL 22% or whatever
it’s just a matter of them admitting
they don’t know wtF just happened
but somethin is really really wrong
with the way they
feel inside.
https://is.gd/pnMqzM
And when YOU don’t forget what the point is,
and what to do with it,
I guarantee you THEIR asses
aren’t gonna forget what the point was,
and what you did with it, either.
squid2112 says:
2018/07/17 at 9:49 PM
@Gary … what?…
Your’e right,
“I love photons. They hit my retinas and I can see stuff. As far as this silly argument about photons moving from colder to warmer, how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-heart-of-the-agw-premise-fails-empirical-review.693398/page-25#post-20400909
OMG…that is so stupid. I have to save that one.
Here is a even stupider reply to it:
“That’s actually a clever counterexample of the SSDD misunderstanding of the wording of the second law;
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
The true second law is in action when your eyes feel the cold from standing close, but if you want to live up to SSDD’s standards you have to make it spontaneous. So put some ice cream on your counter top and do something else for a while like let your fingers be snapped by a mousetrap so you forget about the ice cream. Then when you next happen to see the ice cream it will be spontaneous energy flowing to your eyes. The ice cream might have become soggy, but it was all for science.”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-heart-of-the-agw-premise-fails-empirical-review.693398/page-25#post-20401254
The 2nd-law brain dead are the worst because they keep clinging to that 2nd law like discovering it’s a substitute for years of laborious study to learn answers to hundreds of trick questions about polyphase matter-energy,
PAYING their OWN money just to be in the CONTEST to see if they can learn enough
to get to the point where the questions are ASKED – while everyone else
went out and traveled
and partied
and gambled
and pursued legitimate business interests
not involving physical polyphase law as major components of their careers.
“I dun bin two tha inturnet, and look’t it up, yaW dont undurstand”
is pretty much the beginning and ending of the provability of their arguments.
“Thair ain’t no way, no THREE ZiSTuRS, kin hav three timp-ur-churs, in three playsis.”
That wood meen thim coldie photies dun wint at thim hottie photie makurs an thim law dun sed,
with purfict pyurniss, it jist cain’t happin. Sorry. Tha LAW, has dun spoake tuh yaW, yaw jist cain’t here!”
“If what you say is true, SSDD, and “thim coaldie photies cain’t go at nunna thim
hottie photie makurs, why don’t you go blind, when you walk outside on a cold morning?”
That’s hilarious, I don’t wanna go over there and start riding his dumb ass down, because –
he’ll obviously have to fold up like cheap lawn furniture and go mute
except to keep posting that law up like it’s vampire season and he went to the dollar store
and bought a plastic cross.
The reflected light thing isn’t lost on me here, it just struck me funny as hell.
The freezer/eyeball joke is a new one on me also. Of course it is not a violation of 2LoT. Visible light means high energy photons. Much higher energy than those in a human body. They should try looking into a freezer with all the lights off!
But, it’s another great example of how little the clowns understand physics.
That should be “much higher energy than the photons capable of being emitted by a human body”.
(Never make comments until after the third cup of coffee!)
The reason these kinds of answers to 2nd law kooks are so hilarious, is that – typically – it’s they who say the most out LANDISH and crazy stuff.
I also saw what Mr Anderson was saying. That’s highly commendable that you found those places, George, it’s so refreshing to see someone discuss real physics it’s like taking some kinda shower to just follow someone who for ONCE, can STEP his WAY from A to B and ACCOUNT his ENERGY.
A lot of people don’t realize where the dank smell comes from, regarding the skeptical movement.
It’s the 2nd-Law KooKs.
Not the guys like me and McGuiness LoL !
Oops sorry “McGinn” LoL my bad
I’m tired of being told that pointing out the small percentage of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is a weak way of arguing, and so, in yet another instance of being told this, I made the following reply at WUWT:
Whoever it is saying it
is too stupid to know what SUBTRACTING 22% of the SUN’S ENERGY is.
It’s NEVER heating when insulation SUBTRACTS 22% of otherwise available warming firelight spectra from the rock the insulation cools.
It doesn’t matter what they say or how they say it, the correct answer to it is that you have perfect proof adding CO2 to the atmosphere COOLS it or the GHGs wouldn’t be THE reason, 22% of total sunlight is taken from Earth atmospheric temp calculation off the top.
Allen E.,
Can you summarize again where you get that 22% you refer to ?
I’m really not saying it correctly, Bob.
Whatever the difference is, between light making it to the surface, vs at the top of the atmosphere, the GHGs are responsible for about 22% to 23% of total sunlight not making it.
The rest refracted to space, is divided between dust, Oxygen, Ozone, and Nitrogen.
The magic gas brigade obviously doesn’t like leaving that info around in educational presentations
clearly delineated and in fact – the only way I know to retrieve it even in part, is on ANY sunlight, top-of-atmosphere vs sea level chart.
Where it CAN’T be HIDDEN. They don’t COUNT UP the part removed by GHGs vs dust, ozone, oxygen and nitrogen, they just write “H20, H20, H20, and where the VISIBLE is they don’t write ANYTHING at ALL but almost all THAT is – H20. In fact of the refractive cooling done Water does the VAST, VAST majority of – EVERYTHING the GHGs do.
I’ll try to look it up for ya Bob but to tell you the truth, I noticed papers and pages having this information in detail, began to be completely vanished from most educational pages related to ANY
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE-CREATED online content
almost ten years ago
when Anthony Watts and Academia were trying to blot out all information on Atmospherics they could.
The reason I never have made such a big deal about keeping track of it is because
the exact numbers are STILL stubbornly lodged in MANY atmospheric texts,
and these are important info that someone’s always going to have.
The last time I actually found a chart – I really haven’t been looking for years now after I saw the purge start cranking up regarding ALL GHG cooling,
the GHGs were refracting away about 22.3% or something like that, it was almost to the point where rounding up, you’d say 23% I think, I seem to remember hearing and reading “22, to 23%”, over and over many years ago, for the GHGs refraction,
before all the scientists trying to warn the people of the tremendous fraud ,
all got old and had to retire as they were purged from natural sciences government positions.
Truly my bad Robert I know I’m lettin ya down.
SunsetTommy,
Tell the physics rejects about Planck’s law ie, E=h*v , I guess they have made an incredibly clear statement about their absolutely colossal lack of spectrum knowledge and the distribution of energy there in. Most especially in the sense that they have no idea about IR vs visible light EM Spectrum.
Cold don’t heat hot. Ever not Ever. Never. Not green eggs nor photons lighter, not red hair or cold light thats brighter. Never ever does cold heat hot.
If you find a reference, Alan E, then I’d appreciate it.
Here’s what I’m thinking:
0.04% of Earth’s entire atmospheric volume, absorbing critical wavelengths in very restricted absorption bands, supposedly provides enough energy to somehow heat up Earth’s surface significantly from how it would otherwise be heated up without that 0.04% absorbing in very restricted absorption bands.
0.04% restricted to a 15-micron window, and, abra kadabra, we have Earth warming. Never mind in all those other absorption bands, the sunlight coming in is being somewhat turned away. Never mind that absorption within this narrow window going out, has all happened within 10 meters of Earth’s surface, WHILE a bunch of other frequencies in other absorption bands have been turned away. Never mind that humans probably could NOT “double CO2” in Earth’s atmosphere, because the CO2 that we DO add is a tiny fraction of the TOTAL amount from NATURAL sources. We would have to compete with the rate of output of natural sources, which, even now, we do NOT come close to doing.
All this talk of “doubling”, then, seems to ignore what it is us humans are actually contributing in the way of the magical gas. Any “doubling” would require us humans to do an almost inhuman feat. When you figure out how much CO2 we would have to produce to double the entire Earth’s parts-per-million measure, you begin to see how questionable the talk about “doubling” is.
Think about it: human generation of the magical gas is about 15 ppm, while the total fraction of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is about 410 ppm. So, if some people are so concerned about CO2, then why is all the talk about doubling the 410 ppm to 820 ppm, when humans could double JUST THEIR FRACTION and still not add very much to the whole? How many more civilizations the size of the current civilization would we have to cram onto the planet, in order to “double” CO2 ppm ?
Do I disrespect the Earth, in saying all this ? No. Positively not.
Instead, I advocate focusing on real issues of environmental concern. CO2 is not such an issue.
Most people in developed nations live in CO2 environments ABOVE the official ppm anyway, given how we enclose ourselves within artificial environments, where our collective breathing and outgasing structural materials bathe us in amply more magical gas than the official ppm.
Robert, somewhat in line with your not “disrespecting the Earth”, you might enjoy this:
Current atmospheric CO2…..410 ppm
Minimum CO2 required for human life….150 ppm
Minimum CO2 required for plant life….250 ppm
Best CO2 level for most plants…..550 ppm
Typical CO2 level on long air flight….1000 ppm
Maximum CO2 where humans can function effectively….30,000 ppm
Maximum CO2 before alarms sound in Navy submarines….10,000 ppm
The best CO2 level for Earth might be 550 ppm, if mankind could ever get it that high.
Geran,
I knew the navy sub figure. Good to have the other figures all together. Another interesting figure is the level at which CO2 becomes toxic to humans, which according to one source is 60,000 ppm.
Of course, alarmistas will say that toxicity is a straw man, since the argument is not about toxicity but about thermodynamics. Alas, their version of thermodynamics is toxic, which is what sustains the brain-dead arguments in favor of the “greenhouse effect”.
I believe that the claim about relative toxicity being a straw man is wrong. Here’s why: If a substance whose optimum level to make plant life thrive is 550 ppm, and if a substance whose minimum level to regulate human breathing is 150 ppm, then how is it that 410 ppm is undesirable ?
A substance existing well below the toxic level for humans, which enables all life as we know it, which, in fact, NOURISHES life, would seem at odds with the rest of terrestrial nature to cause adverse planetary warming so extremely below these levels toxic to life and life processes.
@Robert Kernodle
Just as an FYI .. 15µ ~= -80°c !!!
Not sure how you can heat anything on Earth with -80°c !!!
@geran
I like your observations of CO2 concentrations, however, I completely disagree with your “Best CO2 level for most plants = 550ppm” … triple or quadruple that and you are closer to the truth! … plants love CO2 !!! .. almost as much of it as they can get .. just ask any agronomist that operates a real greenhouse. I went to one of the worlds leading agronomy schools (North Dakota State University). They have several greenhouses that are kept around 2000ppm CO2 concentration. I have had a few friends in the past that have operated plant and flower businesses with greenhouses. They try to keep above 1500ppm !!
Our planet, over the time period of the past 500 million years, has averaged somewhere in the neighborhood of 2700ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration. The most biologically prosperous times of our planets history have been in the 2500ppm CO2 concentration region.
Personally, after pondering all considerations, I would put the “Goldilocks” concentration at about the 1700ppm CO2 concentration level … all things being considered.
But, most importantly, I like pointing out to people how we have averaged 2700ppm, we are currently at 400ppm and at about 250ppm or less our planet literally begins to die. Life on this planet is literally less than 200ppm away from extinction! .. Personally, I would feel a whole lot more comfortable being closer to the 2700ppm than the extinction level .. 200ppm away from certain death is not very comforting .. just sayin’
Squid, this is out of my area of expertise, but I remember reading up on it about 6-8 years ago.
There are two broad categories of plants, C3 and C4. They vary in how they achieve photosynthesis. C3 plants appear to stop benefiting from CO2 at levels above 650 ppm. It doesn’t really hurt them, there is just no added benefit, due mainly to photorespiration.
C4 plants, which are typically more likely to be in the greenhouses you mentioned, continue to benefit from higher levels of CO2.
Since trees and major food crops are mostly C3, someone decided 550 ppm might be the optimum atmospheric level for ALL vegetation. Probably additional funding will be needed for more research….
But of course Geran .. expect anything less? … LOL
You may be correct about the C3 vs C4 .. that I am not sure. I do know that some crops, like wheat, like CO2 levels above and beyond 550ppm. They have done much research and experimentation on this at the university I attended for my undergrad.
I was curious whether tomatoes are C3 or C4, and it appears that they are C3, which means that if all other factors were optimal (sunlight, moisture, soil conditioning), then more CO2 would give them a big boost.
Okay, so I grow tomatoes every year in a raised-bed, completely caged, well irrigated, soil-amended, scheduled-fertilized, outdoor, trellised garden. The only thing I cannot control is CO2, which, I assume, is at or maybe a little above the 410 ppm level. My garden is located about 100 feet away from a truck loading bay that has a tall privacy fence around it and a fairly deep, wide drainage basin for storm runoff between the loading bay and my garden. Lots of trees, wild bushes and grass surround the garden too.
This year, I controlled all the other factors the best that I ever have, and the result was a respectable number of huge tomatoes on three plants only. This has been my best year, with tomato diameters generally 5 inches or more. The first one that developed was about seven inches in diameter:
That is what I got with 410 ppm or so.
I wonder what 1500 ppm CO2 added to the mix would have produced, if it were possible to control this factor for an outdoor vegetable garden.
CO2 is such an awful thing. (^__^)
U.S. Congress is sinking to a new low:
Think we’ll be seeing a resignation soon?
One could only hope.
According to wiki, Carlos has a degree in “Business Administration”. Translation: He has NO science background. He wouldn’t know the difference between a photon, a proton, and a protein!
Like 90% of all politicians, he’s just trying to climb on whatever wagon will get him re-elected. Representative government fails once the voters are sufficiently dumbed down.
I remembered it: the guy’s name was Konrad not Kristian. The guy is a German porn novel writer. He’s a CLASSICAL experimental scientific hobbyist.
It’s at Tallbloke’s website. This is some good reading or seemed to be
during the darkest days of this FAKE SCIENCE-DARKENING SCAM,
when TALLBLOKE’S HOUSE in London ( I think)
was INVADED by the POLICE and ALL his
COMPUTING EQUIPMENT SEIZED
BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN
SAYING ONLINE
THAT
* * * * * * *
“M.A.Y.B.E. THE COLD NITROGEN OXYGEN ATMOSPHERE,
isn’t A HEATER.”
* * * * * * *
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/konrad-empirical-test-of-ocean-cooling-and-back-radiation-theory/
The guy who did the experiment is talking in the comments.
I haven’t gone back over this, my wife and I are driving
and I thought of the name of the experiment,
the google return was the first one.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/konrad-empirical-test-of-ocean-cooling-and-back-radiation-theory/
Peace, hippies.
[Oh and a P.S.] I couldn’t remember the exact name of the experiment Konrad did.
But I SEARCHED some DOZEN differen’t WAYS of TYPING the PHRASEOLOGIES
around ‘IR COOLS WATER/IR BACK RADIATION COOLS OCEANS
and FINALLY when I typed… mmm lemme look at the tab hang on –
“experiment backradiation effect on oceans” was the search I did FINALLY
and it
F I N A L L Y showed up, and *bang* I was routed to Tallbloke’s place.
He was one of the VERY FIRST
and has BEEN one of the MOST ABUSED CRITICS
of the FAKERY
of the DETESTABLE SCAM.
Yes, geran, if an issue is popular with a large audience, then appealing to this issue is a sure-fire way to get votes. Never mind the facts underlying the popular interpretation of the issue that lead politicians to nurture the ignorance of their voters. And, hey, it can actually make the government some money to spare for building roads, which I think uses quite a bit of fossil fuels and produces a fair amount of CO2.
So, let me get this straight — we want to impose a carbon tax to feed a fund that helps build roads and infrastructure using processes that produce more carbon — more carbon to tax.
Brilliant !
I was riding while my wife was driving us home yesterday and wanted to make the point that no matter HOW many times I typed various versions of the phrase I finally typed in, Google never put Tallbloke’s website ANYWHERE in either the first OR second page.
(Perhaps it did and I didn’t see it but I don’t think it did.)
Why ARE the ECO-WACKOS who think a COLD BATH being a HEATER sounds “intuitive”
HIDING TALLBLOKE’S WEBSITE?
WHY haven’t GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WORLDWIDE, FASCINATED by this PRIME EXPERIMENTAL PROOF that INFRARED COOLS WATER,
replicated the two experiments I told you guys of and had
huge CONFETTI PARTIES
and ”WE’RE NOT ALL DYING!” festivals,
where they run up and down aisles and lines of people,
, exuberently smooching and hugging e.v.e.r.y. single person they meet,
forgiving homework and saying, “Hey WE’RE ALL NOT GONNA DIE, GUYS, EVERYBODY just
GO take the DAY OFF, and WALK BAREFOOT in some NICE GREEN GRASS!!!”
WHY the F*** NOT?
WHY NOT.
WHY.
WHY ISN’T A SINGLE GROUP OF LEFTISTS, GOVERNMENT-COLLAPSING ANARCHIST MURDERERS, anywhere –
BREATHING a SIGH of RELIEF,
that in fact it turns out that those GHG REFRIGERANTS
aren’t BOILING the OCEANS?
I’ve been using Google since about the third day they existed. It’s been a long time but for some reason the day their search engine rolled out, there was a time difference, the next I had to get up early and go somewhere and drove all day and didn’t check out their engine then, and on the third day or so, I paused long enough to look some things up using the (almost & it was to me) brand spanking new search engine.
What just happened to me was one of the many obviously steered-to-conceal type search returns I’ve ever encountered.
I remember how the police ransacked his house in England. People worldwide were all like – ”LooK at THESE motherf****ers!” Of course nobody came to the man’s aid, no lawyers, nobody because the entire world had been being threatened by government employees, LEFT and RIGHT that if ANYONE worked to STOP THE FRAUD FROM GOING FORWARD THEY WOULD BE TARGETED SPECIFICALLY, ARRESTED and HAVE their LIFE RUINED by GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
It was a BONE CHILLING EXERCISE in RAW CRIMINALITY that sent shock waves through the whole world at the TRANSPARENCY and SHEER CRIMINALITY of what was OBVIOUSLY going on.
I meant to say it was one of the worst instances above.
I just discovered that Ed Bo tried to School Douglas Hoyt with his bull crap.
Hoyt writes:
“Douglas Hoyt says:
June 23, 2018 at 8:49 pm
Another paper by Holmes reaches much the same conclusions as Nikolov and Zeller.
Click to access 10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf
In the presence of a gravitational field, a gaseous atmosphere will have to follow the law of conservation of energy. It naturally leads to a vertical temperature gradient. It is called an adiabatic process. No need for greenhouse gases to explain why the surface is 33 K warmer than the top of the atmosphere.”
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/06/science-in-the-16th-century/#comment-104747
Then a long series of exchanges began with Ed Bo’s reply:
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/06/science-in-the-16th-century/#comment-104775
Ed Bo……LOL.
Ed Bo or Bone Head ?
Bo is tenacious, but he still seems wrong, even as he quotes Maxwell and Feynman. I’d be curious how to word an argument against his Maxwell/Feynman defense.
Were Maxwell and Feynman wrong about gravity’s effect on gas in a vertical column? — it seems that they were.
As we go higher up in the atmosphere, the air becomes less dense, right? So, there are fewer molecules higher up in a given volume than there are molecules lower down in the same-sized volume — that’s what density means, right?
If the temperature were the same higher up (with fewer molecules per volume) as the temperature lower down (with more molecules per volume), then fewer molecules per volume would have the same average kinetic energy as more molecules per volume, right? But fewer molecules would have to have MORE energy (i.e., moving faster) than more molecules (i.e., moving slower).
How would it be possible for fewer molecules to move faster higher up, stacked on top of more molecules moving slower lower down? What mechanism would selectively stratify the distribution of energy upward to make the progressive layers of molecules at higher and higher levels more and more energetic to achieve the same temperature as the bottom layer of molecules?
And why would a given higher-up layer of molecules assume the energy of any particular level of molecules above or below it? … in order to maintain the same average kinetic energy per unit volume, to maintain the same temperature throughout the entire vertical column? What is the mechanism that would enable any layer to assume a given energy level per volume.
it seems ass backwards. If you do not accept that gravitational compression causes increased density, which means, with the same energy input, more average kinetic energy per volume of molecules exists lower down than higher up, then you have to accept another mechanism that ADDS energy as you ascend higher into the atmosphere at exactly the rate that the air thins.
What might that mechanism be? Magic?
I might have messed up above, in exactly how I worded it.
The point I’m trying to make is that fewer molecules per unit volume registering the same temperature as more molecules per unit volume seemingly would require that each molecule of the less-dense volume had more energy than each molecule of the more-dense volume to be in its respective volume at the same temperature, … with the same source putting the same energy into each volume.
Robert no matter WHAT Ed Bo claims, the EQUATION of the LAW used
is RIGHT THERE in his FACE, DEFYING HIM.
The equation states CLEARLY that
PV
is equal to
the TEMPERATURE
times how much ENERGY’s in the gas. (R is that)
Times how much you’ve got, obviously
represented by the [n] part.
In math-speak Robert it’s OVER when you SHOW him that EQUATION
and TEMPERATURE is a DIRECT FUNCTION of PRESSURE.
Maxwell’s and Feynman’s errors are OBVIOUSLY RULED OUT by the EQUATION.
Have you ever seen someone talk about math as ”being the proof” in a case like this?
Where all you NEED is the EQUATION of the LAW to see if someone’s lying?
He’s TRYING to TELL YOU that ”REELE SMART FELLURS has DUN SED TIM PURCHUR ain’t CONNECTID two PRESHURE!”
Look at the PROFOUND IGNORANCE it takes to see the EQUATION of LAW right THERE
TELLING him: PRESSURE at a given VOLUME is EQUIVALENT to the combination of
HOW much gas you’ve GOT
times
HOW MUCH ENERGY’S in it
times
the TEMPERATURE it’s AT.
It doesn’t matter HOW much he claims HE’S got FELLURS dun TOL’T HIM that LAW’S RAWNG,
He’s so BARKINGLY INSANE that HE never HEARD a TEST QUESTION in HIS LIFE, asking ”EXPLAIN how PRESSURE and VOLUME relate to TEMPERATURE.”
Ask him Bob, say – ”This sounds VERY intriguing to me, WHAT CLASSES have you HAD where you WORKED OUT GAS MASS/ENERGY relationships?”
Watch it just be CRICKETS. “AWL THIM CLAISSIS SEZ THAT!”
Tell him “I didn’t ask yew if awl thim claissis sez thayut, I ASKED YOU WHAT CLASS YOU TOOK
where THEY TOLD YOU PRESSURE and TEMPERATURE aren’t DIRECT FUNCTIONS of EACH OTHER.
Watch him simply try to BLOW by and NEVER answer because there IS no CLASS that tells people
PV = nRT doesn’t make TEMP and PRESSURE direct FUNCTIONS of each OTHER.
When he stalls you out Robert be REAL patient with him, and say “Well, I appreciate you don’t think the law of physics GOVERNING this knows what it’s saying, but – I REALLY am INTERESTED in WHERE you were TAUGHT temperature, pressure and volume, aren’t DIRECTLY related FUNCTIONS: SCUBA? Did you take a S.C.U.B.A. class? Was it WELDING class you had to answer questions in, where you were told P & V aren’t DIRECT functions of T?
Just ask him in little one line posts, and string him out for like five, six days on THAT alone and when you get to the point it’s CLEAR he never PASSED a GAS MASS/ENERGY CLASS in HIS LIFE, just say so – tell him ”It’s clear no one taught you that P, V , and T are INDEPENDENT of EACH OTHER because the LAW SAYS RIGHT THERE in your FACE, they ARE.”
He’ll just go DEAD quiet
as far as any new explanation of his LOOP TARD CLAIM because it’ll be obvious even to HIM:
he’s NEVER had to pass a TRICK QUESTIONS CLASS about it in HIS LIFE – even a BASIC question about it – Robert I’m not kidding you when I tell you that – when you ask anyone teaching you gas mass/energy, and you ask them ”are there any TRICK questions to THIS?”
The answer’s NOT REALLY since there are only really, P, V, and T that are VARIABLES in the EQUATION – with the obvious and – I think you understand “n” is just a matter of how MUCH substance there is, and R isn’t a VARIABLE – it’s CONSTANT and REFERRED to as such, for EACH gas or MIX.
Robert, I’m not making fun.
Do you know how,
I know you’ve never been hang gliding gone scuba diving, taken a welding class, or even taken an air conditioning class?
Because YOU don’t REALIZE how TRANSPARENTLY FAKE, ED BO’S ”appeal to authority” is,
FACED with that EQUATION of PHYSICAL LAW that he will not EVER compromise by one PHOTON’S value. Not EVER.
There are many times in these SCAM busting, self-teaching expeditions many MANY of us go on in our life, even if it’s to just be a better comparison shopper – where – the person just kinda crawling his way through all the arguments the first time, hasn’t ever had it explained to him in some kinda ‘authoritative way’ that – sometimes, there just isn’t a BETTER way to DESTROY a person’s argument, even if it seems like as a NON pro fraud buster in this, you’d like to see the physical arguments all dragged out.
Whereas someone who has a degree that qualifies him to WORK in BUSTING FRAUD as LEADERSHIP will jump on that so f***g fast it’s like somebody threw a parakeet into a fan.
Then when someone mentions to you that it’s true what he’s saying violates law – you start looking around for stuff that OBEYS that law.
For instance – here’s your f**n winner, right here NOT a BOOK CRACKED, Robert, just the TWO of us TALKING – Generi-question: When SOMEONE calculates GLOBAL atmospheric TEMPERATURE, do they EVER have to INPUT the PRESSURE at SOME POINT?
* * *IT’S OVER you JUST PROVED it to yourself, that HE’S full of SHIT,* * *
Of COURSE the PRESSURE at the SURFACE is PART of the EQUATION STRING
for GLOBAL atmospheric TEMPERATURE.
He’s DONE.
He’s DONE THEN ROBERT, he’s TELLING you ”HE DUN HURD THAIR WUS THEASE FELLURS AN THAY DIDNT’ EVUN NOE PRSHURE an TIM PURCHUR wuz KUNECKTID! YaW thay DIDN’T!
THAY WUZ SIGNTSIE an THAY NEVUR HURDA SUCH!”
Do those REALLY sound like the PRINCIPLES expressed by someone SANE to you, Robert?
That MAXWELL and FEYNMAN (or whomever I forget I’m on a phone) DIDN’T KNOW, it was
AWL TWO KOM PLIKAYDID
fur thim FELLURS,
Robert,
the equation of law, ”PV =nRT”?
Does THAT even sound like someone SANE telling you that, having SEEN the damned equation itself sitting there DARING him to say ”Nah, yew doant evun unnurstaynd yur seelf
yew’s jista
LAW u FiSiSiCKS what
doant evun understand yoar self!”
Does it really sound like something cooked up in the mind of someone SANE,
that THOSE two MEN
didn’t know that PRESSURE and VOLUME and TEMPERATURE
are DIRECT FUNCTIONS of each other????
Seriously, you think what Ed Bo is saying could convince a WELDER of THAT?
An AIR CONDITIONING STUDENT at DooMaHitch-a-Hatchie Jr Community College would believe Ed Bo?
I mean- at some point, it becomes your responsibility to just ASK yourself, if YOU can see yourself, in your MIND, MAXWELL sitting there UTTERLY STUMPED, about PRESSURE and VOLUME, being related to a gases’ TEMPERATURE and then the other man TOO?
With the MODERN LAW right THERE: THREE INTERDEPENDENT VARIABLES, ROBERT.
THREE INTER-DEPENDENT VARIABLES
and “It was ALL TOO MUCH, for AWL thim FELLURS to EVUN CONCEIVE.”
And, “It don’t MAttUR what NO LAW, dun SED,
THAY wuz SMART FELLURS!
SMART’RN thim LAWS!”
Try to go do something where you’re free wheeling mentally Robert, but you’re taking in the wide world around you and keep telling yourself that MAXWELL and FEYNMAN could NOT GRASP
and in fact Robert,
Special Ed, wants you to just NOD – TODAY – with the LAW THERE IN FRONT OF HIM
that
NO, YOU NEVER HEARD or HAD it SHOWN to YOU in your LIFE
that TEMPERATURE and PRESSURE of GASES are INTER-DEPENDENT VARIABLES.
And TELL him that Robert, say ”I don’t know WHAT the F YOU’RE trying to SAY, but the LAW SAYS RIGHT THERE – that PRESSURE and TEMPERATURE are D.I.R.E.C.T. FUNCTIONS of EACH OTHER.
ONE can not CHANGE without at LEAST one
of the OTHER two CHANGING.
At LEAST
one.
Temperature CHANGES – then either VOLUME or PRESSURE or BOTH, MUST change.
That’s why MATH is used to write PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIP LAW.
And this is how you can stop him from going ON and ON – by just DESCRIBING how STUPID HE CLAIMS FEYNMAN and MAXWELL would BOTH have to BE,
to be DETERMINED to RESIST that PV= nRT to the point that EVEN when SHOWN
nope…
CAIN’T BUH LEAVE IT, AIN’T GuNNA BuhLEAVE it, cain’t MAKE me BU LEAVE it, even SHOWING ME THAT BALLOON,
SAID FEYNMAN.
This is one of the things that RECOGNIZING WHY the LAW’s written in MATH, takes care of.
When you pay nearly ANYBODY MONEY to talk about it Robert one of the main things nearly EVERY subject covers is FRAUD and HOW it’s DETECTED, and HOW it’s PROVED and not just in COURT- a REAL scientist has to persuade people about to climb into the faulty craft, RIGHT NOW
with a REAL WORLD EXAMPLE of HOW to BUST some ERROR.
Well – MOST of the TIME the *LAW of PHYSICS GOVERNING IT is one of the FIRST things*
and then there’s some REAL-WORLD EXAMPLE like I explained to you about – when people CALCULATE the TEMPERATURE of the ATMOSPHERE.
Do they ever CONSULT the PRESSURE as part of the step they’re taking? OF COURSE THEY DO ROBERT, and SPECIAL ED wants you to believe THAT SHIT was B.E.Y.O.N.D. FEYNMAN.
“I cain’t evun conseave it” Feynman dun uttur’d to his self… ain’t no way.
And then he PROVED the LAW PV =nRT – it’s not real. No, thim rockits and thangs ain’t got nuttn two doo with that.”
That’s what he’s telling you FEYNMAN DIED not realizing people CONSULT PRESSURE
at SEA LEVEL when CALCULATING Atmospheric TEMPERATURE,
and FEYNMAN the PHYSICIST never even HEARD of someone consulting TEMPERATURE readings to compare to PRESSURE… no, he couldn’t BELIEVE it.
And not a MATHEMATICIAN on this EARTH Robert could make FEYNMAN yO,
sit there and ADMIT that when someone HEATED something UP,
PRESSURE, VOLUME, and TEMPERATURE,
were PREDICTABLE by knowing how much gas you have
and which energy constant is assigned to that gas or mix.
Special Ed is telling you FEYNMAN couldn’t ever be persuaded of this ”obvious trickery” by which PLANES and ROCKETS and SPACECRAFT paths are CHARTED, and AIR CONDITIONERS and FANS work.
How FANS work and how AIR CONDITIONERS work was BEYOND FEYNMAN
because – ya see what I’m saying here Robert?
I’m trying to give you as much as I can from the NON pro MATHEMATICIAN’S stance,
to go dance circles around him yet USING the LAW like a MATHEMATICIAN would.
He won’t acknowledge the damned LAW’S EQUATION????????????????????
Then you just GO down the LINE of things that “Feynman could NOT be TAUGHT even though every certified WELDER, SPORT DIVER and AIR CONDITIONER REPAIR MAN on EARTH
HAD to LEARN it.
He’s INSANE.
What he’s SAYING is so INSANE it ought to be MOCKED by QUOTING how FEYNMAN’S MIND would have to have WORKED, to NOT BE ABLE TO GRASP what a WELDER is TAUGHT.
It makes me SO freakin mad to see innocent people deceived by those posing b****es if it weren’t for having conceived Allen Eltor as a sorta generic Doug Cotton or James McGinn, I wouldn’t even be able to talk about it and not get mad.
You’ve GOT to remember, Bob, you aren’t talking to a normal human being. That m****r is SERIOUSLY mentally ill.
And he’s not gonna respond, to your being right except to act contemptous so what YOU’VE got to do is just quietly, without TELLING anyone else WHAT to think,
show them all what HE says, means MAXWELL and FEYNMAN were BOTH STUPIDER than a fucking WELDER.
Than an AIR CONDITIONER REPAIR MAN.
Than some SPORT diver with a cute earring and a tattoo of an anchor with the word ‘MoM’ – wait – that’s the welder.
Well wtF ever, he’s telling you that FEYNMAN could not be TAUGHT to CALCULATE, what an ORDNANCE DISPOSAL GUY has to learn before he’s qualified to understand about HIGH PRESSURES vs LOWER PRESSURES and effects on VOLUME and TEMPERATURE.
FEYNMAN was too STUPID, Robert. That’s what Special Ed is saying, and MOST of the time Robert you have to talk ABOUT people like Special Ed to everyone ELSE and just win the room that way.
Don’t let it become a psychology match Robert he’s a DELIRIOUS NUT- so STUPID
he thinks HUNDREDS reading a SCIENCE forum,
will believe neither MAXWELL nor FEYNMAN could be taught
BASIC WELDING air conditioning and SCUBA PRINCIPLES.
They were both too stupid to learn ORDNANCE DISPOSAL or
RELOAD FIREARMS with POWDER producing TEMPERATURE and PRESSURE.
Because MAXWELL and FEYNMAN DISAGREED with PV = n RT.
“IT was TOO UNREAL for THEM to even FATHOM could be true.”
Yeah right Robert. It shouldn’t take ya long to beat his ass with that. G.L.
“Neither Maxwell nor Feynman could UNDERSTAND, ”PV = nRT” and in FACT ROBERT,
they DISPROVED that the LAW governing the matter is real. Those SHIPS DIDN’T REALLY land on MARS and there weren’t REALLY 13 CRAFT landed on VENUS using PV = nRT because –
that shit’s FAKE.
Special Ed’s STORY to you about the COLD NITROXY BATH being a HEATER though is REAL.
And yeah it’s STRANGE how neither MAXWELL nor FEYMAN would have been ABLE to become
AIR CONDITIONING REPAIR men or INSTALL WOOD STOVES because
they wouldn’t ALLOW people to TELL them PV = nRT.
Their asses would have been dancing on that pole four nights a week,
grinding and gyrating, but they’d never STOOP to ADMIT that PV = nRT
and GO ahead and get that AIR CONDITIONER REPAIR MAN career
that would have PULLED them out of that ALLEY
with that NEEDLE in their arms.
Having a generic menthol smoke,
before another dance to
‘Smoke on the Water.’
They’d have just TOUGHED it OUT rather than TEACH Jr COLLEGE WELDING
somewhere
and admit THE LAWS of PHYSICS
are INTACT.
YOU CALLED his f***n BLUFF when YOU showed him PV = nRT,
and HE told YOU,
HE can’t see *HOW the F***#
YOU THINK
PRESSURE
VOLUME &
TEMPERATURE are DIRECTLY RELATED.
YOU called his BLUFF when he ADMITTED that PART of SOLVING for the TEMPERATURE of the SURFACE is FINDING OUT what the PRESSURE is.
So my characterization of Ed Bo as Bone Head might not be premature.
I quickly read over his many comments, and his response (if I remember correctly) to someone quoting the gas law was something to the effect of, “You have no idea what the gas law actually means.”
I wonder what Bo thinks it means, compared to what you think it means. There does not seem to be a lot of room for different interpretations of its meaning.
So, what gives away Ed Bo’s Bone Headedness is his insistence that people familiar with the law do not understand the law. And then he uses the mistaken notions of famous people to support his claims.
Okay, let’s choose a famous person, and quote something they said that is now known to be false. Since this person did 99% OTHER things that were brilliantly right, let’s choose the ONE thing they got wrong to support our claim. This is confirmation by fame, NOT confirmation by facts. Bone Headed, no ?
My first-ever comment over at that deplorable blog apparently did not make it through moderation. I was critiquing Bo’s use of the phrase, “just sayin'”, in his response to your comments, where he compares your writing style to a “schizophrenic drunk”. I consider the phrase, “just sayin'” as a passive aggressive ploy to force an idea onto another person by pretending to be humble. It’s a fake language device that I despise. It’s similar to when some people use the word, “whatever”, when they can say nothing more intelligent, in an effort to stop the conversation cold, without making any further effort to communicate.
That’s the only skill these goblin freaks have…sophistry and manipulation and pretenses.
Locust food.
LoL I’m busy doing some stuff so I haven’t gone back over there yet.He’s not gonna get away. I’m gonna be working around the farm tomorrow and I have been last couple of days.
I kinda suspected he would be stupid enough that he thought he could face the pressure for some more rounds, you guys just have fun with him
The CON business is TIRING to the CON MEN
because they NEVER KNOW when somebody’s gonna come around a corner
and kick their ass.
We’ll see who he thinks is schizophrenic. LoL!
Peace guys see you tomorrow maybe. We’re gonna be humping around here, under the house, all that kinda stuff.
Joseph.
Would you challenge …him.
If i post and he replies to my question why he believes co2 is causing global warming, and by what mechanism.
Can i say an expert will be along shortly or you just post a take down,…..
It will be quite funny as he uses broad brush descriptions etc
Dr Benny Peiser
Dr Benny Peiser is Director of the Global Warming Policy Forum.
This my favorite hang-out
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/warmer-weather-is-a-lifesaver/
3 or 4 of Monkton’s ”crew” have started posting this kind of lukewarm bs,
I came across this:
Click to access graeff1.pdf
So is that what all this sophistry and the RGHE is trying to hide?! A possible mechanism to generate unlimited free energy?
Lol…goblins.
So instead of us discovering free energy and the liberation therein, they wanted us to feel bad about our existence and to be taxed for breathing under this pseudoscience sophistry of the RGHE which nicely covers the real liberating mechanism up.
Pingback: Step Function – A New World | Climate of Sophistry
I’m baiting an illiterate innumerate dipshit named Greg Laden at his website LoL. stand by for link.
http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/#comment-602544
I haven’t been over to see if shit for brains has the guts to respond, I’m training myself to take my time, and destroy their will to discuss their church in weeks, not days. Ho hum, such is the life of real scientists, kicking, spitting on, punching and shoving fakes off stages.
Everyone thinks science is a calm thing but that’s something not necessarily true because the very reason, guys, degrees are issued, is so people can work – in enforcement of standards. That’s what having a degree is actually about, but the Socialist Progressives, government employee unions is what they all are,
have destroyed science yet again. My father used to tell me that the onerous part about having government regulate something isn’t the regulation: it’s the fakery that never ends, in order to extort the populace for FAKED LOSSES the government employees spend on themselves.
Thinking that a bogus chart from that fraud Taomino somehow invalidates Tony Heller’s chart is hilarious. I see that a gadfly that goes by ‘Li D’ is commenting there. He’s a frequent troll of CFACT articles. LOL
AlanE,
If you happen to venture back over to Laden’s la la land, then you’ll see that I chimed in:
http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/#comment-604085
Apparently, the “proper presentation of temperature data” requires a person to become blind to the big picture. The concept of an “average” is such a neat trick. NOT.
JP, if you are still monitoring this thread, and if you have time to spare, can you enlighten us less-than-professionally-trained as to the problems in this article:
Click to access PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Thanks.
Nikolov and Zeller is the answer to that hogwash. That article doesn’t say anything new or present anything definitive…it is all just based on the same false and faulty reasoning as anywhere else.
… namely, as you describe in the following, yes?
Yes, right.
I’m focusing on the section of that paper titled, Energy Balance and Surface Temperature, and I dare say that it will make your blood boil. I don’t have the facility of words connected to understanding to easily argue against that, but, based on everything you have ever said, I get the drift that it is a big steaming pile.
So, the cooler upper atmosphere radiates at a cooler temperature than the warmer lower surface.
Substances at different temperatures radiate at different temperatures, right? How does a cooler substance surrounding a warmer substance, then, make it warmer, just because radiation happens at two different temperatures, and the cooler radiating temperature somehow makes the warmer radiating temperature higher than it would otherwise be without the cooler radiating substance?
Seems to me that the warmer radiating surface would radiate at the temperature that it is at, and THIS temperature determines, in part, the temperature of the cooler substance surrounding it. In other words, its the other way around — the cooler substance does not raise the warmer substance’s radiating temperature, but the warmer substance raises the cooler substances radiating temperature to be less cool than it would otherwise be without the warmer substance.
Well, I just went and read that section again too.
It’s sickening. Really disgusting. Almost every single sentence of that part is pseudoscience.
“The same considerations used in the interpretation of spectra also determine the IR cooling rate of a planet and hence its surface temperature.”
There is no such thing as a “cooling rate” in this context. There is a cooling rate when a temperature *is actually dropping* and you can say that the cooling rate is, say, 5K/minute, or you can say that the cooling or warming rate of the Earth is 1 K/century, but you cannot call emission itself a cooling rate. We are starting on entirely false and physically meaningless premises here…and then arguing on from there.
There is IR emission, but this does not mean cooling. And the rate of IR emission, as with any thermal radiant emission, is determined by the source’s temperature and its emissivity. That’s it. If the source is passive then its temperature is determined by its emissivity and its external input.
“An atmospheric greenhouse gas enables a planet to radiate at a temperature lower than the ground’s, if there is cold air aloft. It therefore causes the surface temperature in balance with a given amount of absorbed solar radiation to be higher than would be the case if the atmosphere were transparent to IR.”
That a cool gas can absorb heat from a warmer source is not the RGHE.
“Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly
transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between the ground temperature and the radiating temperature. The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming.”
No, the result of the atmosphere absorbing heat is the atmosphere warming, NOT the source (surface) warming. See, they need this in order to amplify their -18C input to +15C. Nikolov and Zeller answers this garbage.
“The effect is particularly spectacular for Venus, whose ground temperature is 730 K. If the planet were a blackbody in equilibrium with the solar radiation received by the planet, the ground temperature would be a mere 231 K.”
Flat Earth physics. And doesn’t consider N & Z.
“The greenhouse effect of CO2 on Earth and Mars is visually manifest as the ditch carved out of the Planck spectrum near 667 cm−1. That dip represents energy that would have escaped to space were it not for the opacity of CO2.”
Absorption spectra are not the RGHE. That dip can also only represent scattering and have NO thermal effect AT ALL. CO2 is already vibrating in all modes due to being collisionally dominated.
“In the Earth spectrum, one can also see a broad region in which water vapor has reduced the radiating temperature to a value well below the surface temperature.”
Absorption in a gas doesn’t have an effect on the temperature of a source. The source temperature is independent, and absorption happens afterwards if possible.
“For Earth and Mars, the width of the CO2 ditch corresponds approximately to the width of the spectral region over which the atmosphere is nearly opaque to IR. Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the width of the ditch and hence increases the CO2 greenhouse effect. But the increase occurs in the wings of the absorption feature rather than at the center (see figure 2). That limitation is the origin of the logarithmic relation between CO2 concentration and the resulting perturbation in Earth’s energy budget. It has been a feature of every climate model since that of Svante Arrhenius in 1896.”
Absorption spectra are not the RGHE. There indeed may be more scattering and/or thermalization with increased CO2, but the effect is going to be NOTHING like the result they expect from the false amplification scheme of -18C to +15C.
“The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR into the essentially zero- temperature reservoir of space. It therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate between the two.”
Wrong. The RGHE can amplify a temperature to beyond that of the higher temperature source, and there is nothing in RGHE mathematics which demonstrates a limit.
“The greenhouse effect shifts the planet’s surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature.”
The only way to reduce the rate of emission is to reduce emissivity. CO2 has no effect on surface emissivity.
“The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from the furnace.”
Amazing lying sophistry. Low emissivity windows might cause warming because they can’t emit, whereas GHG’s are good emitters. And fiberglass insulation is about trapping warmed air, not radiation.
“The temperature of your house is intermediate between the temperature of the flame in your furnace and the temperature of the outdoors, and adding insulation shifts it toward the former by reducing the rate at which the house loses energy to the outdoors.”
RGHE mathematics says that the temperature inside the home can become hotter than the furnace, and in fact it can then heat the furnace flame itself to even hotter burning temperature.
“As Fourier already understood, when it comes to relating temperature to the principles of energy balance, it matters little whether the heat-loss mechanism is purely radiative, as in the case of a planet, or a mix of radiation and turbulent convection, as in the case of a house—or a green-
house. Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
Lies. Fourier speculated that the atmosphere could form solid layer barriers like the glass of a greenhouse. The atmosphere doesn’t. Idiots.
“without question represents one of the great triumphs of 20th-century physics.”
HAHA. Yes, it is a triumph of science when your models are refuted by empirical measurement!? All of the models of warming were wrong, and the divergence between the model predictions and actual temperatures continues to grow. Yah, real triumph there. You gotta realize that these disgusting sophists write garbage like this on purpose. What they mean is that it is a triumph of pseudoscience and manipulation, and they are damned proud of it.
Robert:
[“In other words, its the other way around — the cooler substance does not raise the warmer substance’s radiating temperature, but the warmer substance raises the cooler substances radiating temperature to be less cool than it would otherwise be without the warmer substance.”]
The way I see it is that the entire cAGW debate hinges on what happens when radiation meets matter. The MASSIVE assumption made by warmists is that the radiation from a cool source is absorbed FOR ENERGY GAIN by the receiving matter. So all these papers assume that just because CO2 can radiate, then it can ‘heat’.
The difference between radiation from a hot source to that from a cool source is wavelength and energy. The ‘hot’ radiation has a shorter wavelength and greater energy than cool radiation. It is this ‘extra’ energy that can fill the energy gap in the molecules of the cool matter in order to raise the internal energy of the molecule (i.e. make it warmer although a molecule cannot have temperature). Radiation from a cool source CANNOT raise the internal energy of hot matter; it is basically irrelevant to that matter. It is either transmitted through or reflected (absorbed for no energy gain and instantly radiated at the same wavelength).
Back radiation leading to warming is a fraud.
The cAGW debate should focus more on absorption rather than radiation.
Just my opinion…
Thanks, JP, for the focused critique.
Pingback: Step Function – A New World | PSI Intl
The following comment from that Physics Sophistry Today article that you answered above seems particularly bizarre:
“Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly
transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between the ground temperature and the radiating temperature. The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming.”
If the once-tenuous portion becomes more opaque, then wouldn’t this portion become warmer? And if this once-tenous-now-thicker portion is now warmer in relation to the surface, then how can it INCREASE the difference between ground temperature and radiating temperature of this portion? Wouldn’t this portion be the entity radiating at a higher temperature? And how did it get to a higher temperature? Where did the energy come from to get it higher, if the ground can provide only so much energy? I find this baffling. Am I missing what he was saying?
Robert, beautiful. This part:
“If the once-tenuous portion becomes more opaque, then wouldn’t this portion become warmer? And if this once-tenous-now-thicker portion is now warmer in relation to the surface, then how can it INCREASE the difference between ground temperature and radiating temperature of this portion?”
You have detected the underlying illogic. Pulled the tangled thread out of itself.
As I have said often: given that the entire scheme is founded upon illogic, one will find illogic everywhere subsequently and extrapolated. Illogic is embedded everywhere in the scheme. That’s why every single sentence was wrong. That’s why when you actually critically analyze it, you find the illogic which you so deftly identified. It is self-contradiction everywhere.
And this one strikes me too:
“The greenhouse effect shifts the planet’s surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature.”
Okay, let’s consider the Earth;s surface at a GIVEN surface temperature. Isn’t radiation AT THAT TEMPERATURE already set? — set BY this given temperature?
How, then, can the radiation AT THIS GIVEN TEMPERATURE be changed to a REDUCED RATE by changing the molecular composition of the gas cloud surrounding it? CO2 changes the emissivity of the surface?! I don’t think so. Is my reasoning reasonable here?
So, the temperature of Earth’s surface advances towards the temperature of the Sun’s photosphere by introducing molecules into the gas mixture of our atmosphere that change the emissivity of Earth’s surface. Isn’t that what this claim amounts to?
Yes, just right. Exactly. Exactly all of those points.
Obviously, I waited until I was fresh today to study your earlier detailed reply to the Sophistry Today article [notice I left out “Physics” entirely this time]. So, each of these comments that you have responded to today is a result of my “braining” on each point, as I feel the angst. Here’s another [in my never ending quest to get it straight]:
“The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from the furnace.”
I knew how that one would rub you the wrong way — the old CO2-is-like-insulation claim.
The wording is all wrong, isn’t it? First of all, adding fiberglass insulation could NEVER INCREASE the temperature without requiring more energy input. Instead, adding fiberglass insulation MAINTAINS temperature at a given energy input by preventing warm air from convecting away. If you did not add the insulation to prevent the convecting away of that warm air, THEN you would have to increase energy input to MAINTAIN the temperature at the desired level.
There’s a vast difference between INCREASING temperature and MAINTAINING temperature “at a given energy input”.
… still going:
“The temperature of your house is intermediate between the temperature of the flame in your furnace and the temperature of the outdoors, and adding insulation shifts it toward the former by reducing the rate at which the house loses energy to the outdoors.”
Crap, crap, crap. Here he seems to confuse the ideas of energy and warm air. Warm air is NOT energy. He is conflating the subatomic and the molecular. Air molecules are NOT photons.
Sound about right?
They confuse everything that they can. Everything.
And finally, about Fourier: Does anybody really think that Fourier was being precise and certain in his speculation? I get the impression that Fourier didn’t quite know what warm air did higher up in the atmosphere — he just played with the idea of something like the effect he described could be going on. He even acknowledged convection.
He sort of left a big blank in his long-winded, round-about analogy, again NOT speculating HOW warmed air higher up might behave, SINCE the air is NOT solid up there.
People have taken his musings to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more precise than I believe that they actually were.
Part and parcel of sophistry. They love to do that, with everything and everyone, when convenient. Note that they don’t take the definition of heat flow so seriously…or actually, use definitions which they pretend support them, but which actually don’t if you read the entire statement, etc.
Ooo!, Fourier, … a genius mathematician, … ventured to speculate on atmospheric warming, … mused about how the atmosphere would have to behave to be like his friend’s experimental set up, … not really sure what happens way up there in the upper atmosphere [since he knew damn well that air is NOT solid, but oh well, he stuck with his musings, leaving a big blank], … some idiot comes along and quotes Fourier’s musings as though they were direct statements of his positive convictions on physical reality, … another idiot comes along to quote the first idiot, … now the story is that Fourier COMPARED the atmosphere to a solid, clear ceiling [No he didn’t — he said it would have to be for the Earth to act the way his friend’s experiment did], … and so the chain of idiocy continues to unfold, and the tone and context of Fourier’s words become lost, and sophistry gains a champion from the past via misrepresentation by idiots.
Ooo!, Einstein, … a genius among geniuses, … ventured to speculate that Twinkies taste like the food of Gods, … yaddah, yaddah, yaddah, … idiot chain … solidified claim: “Einstein first postulated that Twinkies are the food of Gods.” And that settles that.
Ooo!, Stephen Hawking, … mega-genius of our times, never bothered to relate the facts upon which his genius is based to the myth he participated in spreading, … specialization has its drawbacks, but idiots don’t care, they just prop themselves up on the shortcomings of the greatest minds of our times.
Exactly. The one only thing that my colleague scientists have ever said to me when I tried to engage them on climate alarm, is that it is not my/our field and so we should leave it to the experts.
Specialization is what allows the hijack.
Specialization and “autistic” scientific naivety. They believe only random material things happen and so how could someone purposefully lie with their mind?
Yeah, that’s another way specialization has drawbacks.
The way I was referring to is the way that people think specialists of high regard in one area of knowledge AUTOMATICALLY should be taken at their words in another area where they have clearly made little effort.
If you are a specialist and are NOT famous, then what you say about another specialty gets challenged furiously.
BUT …
If you are a specialist who is FAMOUS, … well, … you can pretty much say any damn thing you want about anything, and a grand receptive audience is ready to consider it the words of God.
Famous Fourier mathematical words … EQUALS … Fourier speculative atmospheric words
Infamous (little known outside certain circles) Postma astrophysics words … NOT EQUALS … Postma independently-studied-specialty-applied-words about climate
Thing is, when a large part of one specialty rests on the foundations of another specialty, the person who is an expert in those foundations should have an equal or GREATER say, in that specific (specialized) regard.
If climate science rests on physics, then why is a physicist not an acceptable critic, especially if the physicist has taken much time to explore those who are trying to apply the physicist’s foundational knowledge? And if that foundational knowledge of one specialty is being distorted in its use in another specialty, then the specialty from which the foundational knowledge came … should rule.
Well, that’s why they had to hijack this greenhouse effect…so that it could pretend to be physics, and the physicists would be satisfied SO EASILY with that.
They simply don’t look into it. It is as simple as that. The real physicists I know simply do not, and would not ever, look into it. They actually, it seems, feel as though it would be beneath them to look into yet. Yah, that is actually it…that’s what I pick up from them I now just realized…they find it beneath themselves to look into it…they find the idea uncomfortable. They don’t look into anything because they’re uncomfortable, for some reason, at the idea of that. Cognitive dissonance? Afraid of what they might find? Some subconscious fear of knowing that they’ll find things that they actually need to take seriously and pay serious attention to? Strange.
Maybe not so strange, because if they DID pay attention, and DID take it seriously to look into it, then they might have to say something, … rock the boat in a way that they have never considered, maybe piss off some people that they want to stay in good with, which would threaten their reputation, paint targets on them to be attacked, distract them into this whole mess, which they deep-down would rather avoid.
… a survival response, in other words. … a can of worms that they can do without opening for themselves. … Life is going okay, … why mess it up like this? They are doing what they want to do, and they do not want to be the ones to fight the fight of truth. Truth hurts — it’s like working out — those reps exhaust your muscles, but if you can endure the training, you get stronger.
Everybody is not the athletic type, physically or intellectually. (^_^)
… having some fun over there:
http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/#comment-607836
LoL Bob between my roaring drunken A-10 runs, and your precision munitions,
they don’t know wtF to do.
I visited Greg’s blog to see his attack on Heller to be stupid and free of evidence. He doesn’t show any evidence that Heller is making things up, while he refers to Tamino’s unsourced narrow LATITUDE chart.
It is like comparing Grant Foster to nincompoop.
I see that their replies to Ellen and Robert are dead on arrival, there is no attempt to articulate their position, just a lot of insults and put down replies.
Here is in a full comment from Laden’s site, on why I think they are full of hot air, Robert says and BBD reply:
So what? Cold air “aloft” in the atmosphere radiates energy at one temperature, while warm ground below radiates energy at a higher temperature. How is the temperature difference between two altitudes, in any way, a “greenhouse effect”? — it’s merely the temperature difference between the warmer ground and the cooler air “aloft” in the atmosphere.
Things to google:
What is the greenhouse effect?
Effective altitude of emission
Top of atmosphere (TOA)
Radiative equilibrium
http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/#comment-608199
Pathetic
Somebody talked to you one time about a coal’d nutchurgin bath,
what dun-
yew no,
‘come uh HeeDuR-
and it WASN’T pathetic???
LLLLLLLLoLLLLLLLL!
“Allen: Hey, Tommy, what’s happenin’ man, G2C ya!”
Tommy: “Hey, man, I was…comin’ to work and I had to get some ”critical info” about… the magical gaissiness, what dun ‘come uh coal’d bath uh HeeDuR, so I called Dr Backurd from the
Institewt uh
Backerdistical Glimmerin’z & Wat NoT,
and he talked to me about 5 or 6 minutes.. lemme tell ya, that man has some DEAP THAWTS Allen.”
Secretly Allen muses in his head at that point, sitting there looking at his two spectrum analyzers, volt-ohm meters, that … surely, Tommy is right
and Dr. Backurd dun sed sum signtsie, signtsie thangs.
secretly Allen Eltor wishes they could get 3-way calling and he too,
could hear the truth abowt uh Backurdism, from Dr Backurd’s own voice.
Such is a day in the life of a mere mortal whose natural instinct isn’t to consider a coal’d nitchurgin bath uh HeeDuR, but to think maybe it cooled it
BUT THAT’S jist SILLIE.
To me that seems like it ought to be come one of my Allen Eltor zingers.
“I was talking to a man about a Backurdism and it was pathetic!”
“One time someone talked to you about one,
and it WASN’T pathetic???”
LoLoLoLoL!
Can you imagine years from now opening a book
and seeing Humbert’s name, and reading all that SHIT he wrote,
all just to describe some light hitting some gas, and pinging off into space?
Here’s how an alarmist reads a detailed comment:
Blah, blah, blah, de do de dee, _____________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
(skip a few lines) ____________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
(get the general gist that this guy doesn’t think like I do) _____________
______________________________________________________
(stop reading) ………….. (get pissed off)…………………… (gear up to insult)
Ha ha ha, a very good description on what I see and face everyday at US Message board forum:
Example:
“New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/looks-like-the-cats-out-of-the-bag.698172/
The very first warmist loon comment in the thread on page one:
Confounding says,
“I guess Europe, Asia and the scientists who know more about it than anybody need to catch up with retards from the United States.”
his next comment, still on page one:
“The world would laugh at us if the abject stupidity in this country wasn’t so dangerous. I’ve given up on trying to convince people like you that scientists the world over are not in on a conspiracy to scam us into giving them grant money. It’s enough to know historians will look back and talk about how people like you were stupid as fuck. ”
again,
“It’s seriously embarrassing. A bunch of fuck mouthed rednecks from the United States have unraveled the global conspiracy being pushed by some of the most educated people on Earth. Right… ”
again,
“You’d think somebody that went to college for 6 years would be a little better at typing English. The scientists are not lying to us. People like you are a detriment to our species.”
again still on page one of the thread,
“This sentence outs you as a fucking idiot.”
More like this in the thread. Not once has he tried to make an actual counterpoint against the posted article. Not once does he try to debate civilly. Just scream with insults was the best he can do which of course shows he has NOTHING to counter with.
He is currently BANNED.
Ha ha ha.
Interesting link
Debunking Greenhouse Theory Physics
http://www.fractalnomics.com/2017/07/the-gassy-messenger.html
Abstract
Modern climate science’s fundamental premise (or assumption) is that the greenhouse gases (around 2% of the atmosphere) absorb radiant infrared (IR) heat (as derived by IR spectroscopy), and are a main climate driver because of this specialty. This premise has its origins with the John Tyndall 1859 thermopile infrared detection experiment. The (other) non-greenhouse gases (N2 nitrogen and O2 oxygen) are distinguished from the greenhouse gases by their (said*) inability to absorb (infrared) heat, as deduced from the same experiment: here absorption is confused with opacity. Raman spectroscopy (a complement to IR spectroscopy) challenges this greenhouse gas non greenhouse gas paradigm, and reveals this assumption and conclusion from any IR spectroscopy measurement to be false. It can be shown that N2 and O2 are, due to their symmetric vibration totally transparent to all IR detectors, but are not transparent to Raman detectors. Ramon Spectroscopy shows: CO2 and the other greenhouse gases to be typical, and not special; and that N2 and O2 to be greenhouse gases. Further claims are also challenged with respect to CO2 special properties in this entry. The only valid co-efficient or method to measure a gases heat absorption is by Specific Heat Capacity: where CO2 is a poor contender.
None of that would phase me, as I’m sure none of it phased you. (^_^)
I now find myself having to think through emission temperature again.
Near-surface air temperature is NOT a measure of planetary emission temperature — it is a measure of AIR temperature — it is a measure of the effect of an atmosphere.
Planetary emission temperature encases the atmosphere where that separated air temperature is measureable. The mass where air temperature is measured is subsumed within the mass where emission temperature is measured. Atmospheric temperature is NOT a measure relating to the whole volume of the planet-atmosphere system — it is the measure of a SURFACE-shell, which is a very restricted volume-slice of the planet. Comparing the effect a volume-slice to the effect of an entire volume containing this slice, then, is wrong. A slice of the whole is NOT the whole. A measure for the slice is NOT a measure for the whole.
The surface temperature speaks only of the surface (near-surface atmospheric effect). The emission temperature speaks of the entire planet, inclusive of the atmospheric mass as a part of the whole volume of Earth mass determining it.
The black-body surface for figuring an emission temperature is DIFFERENT from the near-ground surface for figuring an air temperature. Air temperature is NOT planetary radiating temperature. Why seemingly intelligent people think they are comparing the same category, when they speak of the 33-degree difference, then, is amazing to me.
Confusing near surface ATMOSPHERIC temperature with PLANETARY emission temperature, thus, is one confusion surrounding the so called “greenhouse effect”.
Earth — a planet with its atmosphere — radiates, NOT from the ground-and-water surface, but from all throughout the volume of the atmosphere, UNLIKE a perfect black-body model with a solid surface.
To work with this situation as though it WERE a black body, we have to move that radiating surface OF THE PLANET to an altitude higher up above the ground-and-water surface. We imagine a surface that is an average of all the places throughout the volume of the atmosphere, from where we can now say all of Earth’s radiation emanates, as though this average, imaginary surface were a solid surface (for calculation purposes to accommodate the black-body math).
Adding an atmosphere where there was none adds volume and mass, changing the geometry of the sphere now used to determine emission. The surface for the planet WITHOUT atmosphere is NOT the same as the surface for the same planet WITH atmosphere. Ignoring the mass/volume effects of this added atmosphere on the geometry is simply ignoring the reality of the atmosphere.
The 33-degree difference then is nothing more than the mind ping ponging between two entirely different planets — one with no atmosphere and one with, as though the two planets were blinking on and off in the same space-time, at the will of those trying to do calculations for them, and then the mind gets confused about which blink it is on, thus attributing this confusion to an added effect for the same planet, when really it is a different effect for an entirely different planet.
People try to get around admitting this confusion by denying the geometry of the added atmosphere. They use the same geometry of one planet for the geometry of the other planet. They acknowledge the reality of the added atmosphere, but they refuse to acknowledge the basic geometrical characteristics of radius and volume that DEFINE the reality that they acknowledge. The volume and mass of the atmosphere exists, but the radius defining this volume and mass is so insignificant, they say, that they can consider it non-existent. They use a non-existent radius of an existing atmosphere to conflate two substantially different geometrical situations.
Where am I wrong?
Yeah pretty much Bob.
Bob that’s NOT probably accurate, at the very end, there. This kinda scam having gotten this big, you’re always gonna be able to dredge up some dipshit who’d agree with what you said there at the end, but the main deal here is the
improper calculation of the actual STANDARD ATMOSPHERE – and coming up 33 degrees SHORT.
The REASON for it is NOT PROCESSING the COMPRESSION component in the real, ACTUAL, KNOWN-RIGHT temperature, you saw Heller and Huffman STEP YOU THROUGH.
So no, the OFFICIAL story ISN’T what’cha said, Bob. No it’s not. BUT – again I don’t know why I’m repeating myself but – sure, you can find some dipshit that thinks about the different measurements wrongly… and in the way you described, just because they’ve no idea wtf they’re talking about and if you lead em down some road, you can get em to nod, yeah, yeah, yeah, as you say what ya said at the last.
The REAL original scam is NOT a CONFLATION or MISUNDERSTANDING about mean calculated surface emissions height. No sir.
I was just remarking about your summation of the extant situation, overall.
Bob you’re missing the power of just lying to motherfuckers’ faces and telling everyone on media that if anybody gets in the way of the scam, they’re going to be arrested and at the very least ruined and probably assaulted by mobs whipped up for the express purpose of terrorizing the law abiding.
Allen,
I was trying to assemble amo to further face the fans of Laden’s la la land slavish devotion to the Fizziks 2day article, where P does the emission temperature shuffle.
I’m still bothered by the comparison of a meticulously crafted mathematical average of instrument-observed air temperatures (statistically filtered) … to a mathematically calculated figure based on an invisible, imagined surface of a black body sphere that does NOT, in fact, exist.
I want to converse with those guys in their own cited terms, rather than introduce another angle to confuse them and give a new direction for them to find insults.
That comparison of emission to surface-air is just wrong, and I want to be able to lay out the wrongness of that by explaining it right.
So, we use physical instruments, precisely designed to register responses to actual PHYSICAL conditions, when energized.
Real, tangible devices TOUCH some quality of PHYSICAL reality, and we call this quality of physical reality that these tangible instruments actually touch to measure … a TEMPERATURE.
This “temperature” assessment comes from physical, tangible instruments that MEASURED independent, separated, local qualities of physical reality at various areas of a spherical shell of air or some combination of a spherical shell of air and a spherical shell of shallow water, fragmented from the substantially different stuff of land.. We take all these PHYSICAL assessments of the independent regions of the planet surface-shell-in-air-or-suface-shell-in-water and we refine how we look at them as a group, using statistical methods that create a fictional number called a global temperature — again based on a mathematical process of filtering many fragmented ACTUAL, PHYSICAL measures made by ACTUAL PHYSICAL, built-out-of-real-materials INSTRUMENTS.
Some thinker comes along and says, “Suppose the mas that is the air in which lots of these ACTUAL, PHYSICAL, INSTRUMENTAL measurements are taken did not exist. Let’s not measure the temperature with REAL, TANGIBLE, PHYSICAL instruments now — instead, let’s just use a mathematical formula for an ideal dark sphere with zero atmosphere, NOT like the one where we used REAL, TANGIBLE, PHYSICAL instruments to measure. Let’s determine the temperature of the airless sphere with an equation that does NOT use instruments, that does NOT use REAL, ACTUAL, TANGIBLE pieces of data collected by humans independently located, fragmented from one another and then statistically combined, refined, and adjusted to produce this imaginary figure called “global temperature”.”
So the thinker looks at the “temperature” of an atmosphered planet (where he relied on REAL, ACTUAL, INSTRUMENTS to form an ensemble of data that he statistically refined) to the “temperature” of a NO-atmosphered planet (where he relied on the equation for an ideal dark sphere). He considers the “surface” of the NO-atmosphere planet that he imagines to be an ideal dark sphere to be the SAME “surface” as the “surface” of the planet WITH an atmosphere.
He creates two DIFFERENT planets and two DIFFERENT (vastly different) ways of defining “temperature”, and then he mushes these two planets and these two ways of defining “temperature” into the same sphere of his consciousness to fabricate a difference that is unreal on many levels.
How is this “NOT probably accurate” ? I’m really interested in your focused view on this specific point. Not a challenge, mind you, just an effort to gain clarification, so that I might risk making less a fool of myself. (^_^)
I guess what I’m getting at is that, to talk about the atmosphere, one HAS to talk about the ATMOSPHERE, … NOT about comparing an imaginary LACK of atmosphere to the atmosphere that we SHOULD be talking about. Then, when we knock down this fallacy of comparing equation-determined emission temperature to instrument-determined-statistically-refined near-surface temperature, we can revive the line of discussion on a better path for categorically erroneous lemmings following one another over the cliff of their irrationality, sometimes founded on this specific line of flawed reasoning.
The real story is calculate the temperature of the planet wrong by not using gas law to account for the real 33 degrees compression. There is nothing more to the scam. FULL and UNFETTERED EXPLANATION of the ENTIRE thing
just happened.
That’s all there is to it;
Hansen and company set a bomb up
in case shit went wrong.
Start teaching you in 1980, the gas laws are
”old, boring laws that don’t help us understand anything important.”
Waste 16 years of so-called ‘education’ telling you the gas laws don’t work on Venus,
spend all the time they had turning you into a superstitious, scientific truth craving, person,
who would then be almost IMPOSSIBLE to get to spread SIMPLE truths about what’s REALLY up
*and
almost impossible to stop worshiping at the altar
of every new sophist bullshit
fanned into a flame around you.
When you grow up fed on garbage,
your best intuition is go find garbage
and look for nutrition.
The original scam, was
CALCULATE THE TEMPERATURE WRONG,
by REFUSING to INVOKE GAS LAW at the PROPER STAGE
REFUSING to ACCOUNT the COMPRESSION warming.
START
LYING.
Roughly 25 different men
started lying 25 different ways about it
in climate bureaus of 8 or 9 countries
completely taking over in SIX of them,
FIRING everyone who wouldn’t admit a
cold gas bath
IS a HEATER.
* * *F I R I N G REAMS of DEGREED S C I E N T I S T S,* * *
WHO WOULDN’T AGREE, a COLD GAS BATH is a HEATER.
They had the CONFIDENCE to DO that because
THEY KNEW they EDUCATED YOU THOROUGHLY
in
CONTEMPTING SIMPLE EXPLANATIONS
CONTEMPTING objection to THERODYNAMIC LAW VIOLATIONS
CONTEMPTING USAGE of ANY ARGUMENT that REVEALS PUREST FRAUD.
The men who formulated the scam, worked together to use psychology
to turn you into a sophistry-hungry bumpkin,
insecure about how smart you are, and BE,
AFRAID of the gas laws, EMBARRASSED to BRING them UP,
by BEATING YOU OVER THE HEAD, with
”THOSE GAS LAWS ARE SHIT. THEY CAN’T REALLY DETERMINE STUFF.”
I was about to hit enter and remembered the fake energy charts
claiming all kinds of ludicrous energy flows,
and maybe some of that IS conflation.
Maybe the Humbert hick’s ludicrous bullshit is part conflation too.
Considering the volume of fraud, I’m not saying there is no conflation,
I was saying “No, that’s not really, what the original scam was about.”
I might be wrong about that though if some of Trenberth’s and Pierre-Humbert’s ludicrous bullshit are taken into consideration.
The longer I think about it specifically, the more surprised I guess I’ll be, if there’s NOT a bunch of conflation in all that shit.
Isn’t that the right answer?
I see where you’re going, Allen E, and I am in accord with that approach. It’s NOT your approach I am avoiding, but rather your approach that I delay initiating, because FIRST you have to removethe old scab before you can get the new skin to grow, so to speak.
You’ve got to get the scab to see that it is a scab, and direct it how to be something other than a scab (yeah, I’m “metaphorizing” about wounds).
Thinking about emission temperatures compared to average air temperatures and equating fluxes erroneously to double solar input via adding (or “slowing”) energy is all the crust of that scab on wounded intelligence. I want to wash away that crust in my encounters with the loons, before introducing “replacement” skin to which you are alluding. You do this by acknowledging their argument and then using that argument against itself to eliminate itself. THEN you introduce a replacement, … but only after you have scrubbed the hell out of the scab put in front of you.
I like to reply in like terms, on the same ground, and pull that ground from beneath, in other words, BEFORE suggesting replacement ground (again, metaphorically speaking).
Yes, the atmosphere as a mass, has an effect all its on under the sway of gravity. And the gas laws seem to have a clear place in describing this, but the scabs are not ready to see this yet. They must be washed thoroughly, and, by that, I mean addressed in their own terms in their own arguments that you show to be wrong, USING those very same arguments viewed from the CORRECT perspective. This is the challenge — changing perspectives that will allow them to open up to new points of view, beyond their own solidified versions of truth.
Some people, unfortunately, can never … “heal” … they will be scabs forever, because being wounded intellectually is just more comfortable for them somehow. Damn, I must sound like an arrogant son of a b**** to those people right now ! But it’s not arrogance, I think, so much as it is a renewed confidence that the Greenhouse Theory is dead. At least, it is dead to me.
… misspelled some words above, but just know that I know exactly where they are.
I think the first couple of times I was reading what you’re saying Robert, I mis-read it. A lot of what you’re saying is part of what Joseph says regarding those subjects, the fact that it’s black body this, and black body that. Those are all true wherever the kooks depart from standard calculations and processes.
Sorry for mis-reading there I got the wrong impression several times and was playing with a little dog that’s at our house looking at a couple of isolated paragraphs you’d written and realized I’d misinterpreted what I’d been reading.
My bad there sorry, there’s not delete post function so it is what it is
peace
All I have been saying … which I have tried to say before, but I needed to revisit it with an attempted fresh understanding of detail … is that an air-temperature average figured from instrumental recordings, statistically refined, is no where near the same thing as an emission temperature figured from an equation that uses input into a black body. THIS, to me, is one layer of error that no one seems to discuss.
This grand error sits underneath the other great error that I finally got (amazingly, after all this time) last night from reading over some of JP’s previous replies to me in other discussion threads, and after reading over his analysis of the Greenhouse “effect” calculation again. That second grand error is, as JP described it, “making the output the input”, which I never really got the significance of.
The reason that I never got the significance of this statement is because I thought that, at equilibrium, output MUST equal input. The trick is, though, we have to be talking about ENERGY and NOT FLUX. The greenhouse folks set up the picture where the outgoing FLUX is the incoming FLUX, which is literally half ass. The energy comes in on one hemisphere, over a HEMISPHERIC AREA, and this energy fluxes in at a larger flux measurement than it fluxes out, because it fluxes out over twice the area — a SPHERICAL AREA and NOT a hemispherical area.
The emission temperature is figured for the WHOLE planet, NOT half the planet. The emission temperature is a response of the WHOLE planetary-surface-area to the concentrated energy taken in on the sunlit HEMISPHERE.
Have I got it yet ?
Energy into the hemisphere = Energy out of the SPHERE
NOT … flux out of the sphere = flux into the hemisphere spread over the sphere all at once —
that’s physically, realistically NOT what happens. You would either have to create two suns or flatten out Earth into a disc (even then, denying the underside of the disc as a third dimensional reality of a known universe).
Greenhouse theory uses a flat disc that is a plane with zero thickness — a geometrical concept that has no reality, because anything in reality that has area also has thickness, and if it has thickness, then it has an opposite side. The disc has no opposite side ! The calculation is based on a disc that has no opposite side, and then the results of that calculation are portrayed visually on a drawing sometimes that has curvature to make it look like the calculation was based on something else, when, really, it was NOT.
Is this correct?
Well, it is a point, and one Joseph got a lotta mileage out of. How the F*** can you claim this thing showed you WEATHER, that CULMINATES in CLIMATE, when – everything stays IDENTICAL over your DISK? It never EVER does anything but change, AS an AVERAGE?
OBVIOUSLY when you don’t let people escape, that is a bone cruncher and ALONE – OF ITSELF – one could walk into any place
and just keep repeating that and win all arguments. That argument alone, voids ALL fucking argument FOR veracity of ANYTHING in some VERY final sense.
When your fucking claim, is that COMPUTER models can predict WEATHER hence- ULTIMATELY climate and that ”Well, no, nothing ever really changes – ANYWHERE except the entire average a little,”
that’s one you can actually TEACH a room full of ELEMENTARY schoolers. Little tiny cute kid, about 8, 9 years old, ”How can you say what happens when it’s all the same?”
Little baby girl with little kid teeth, smiling, about to give a big honest shrug like “I dunno WtF is wrong with em…?”
Seriously you could teach an 8 year old this. You could take a classroom full of kids in the 2nd, 3rd grade, with an AVERAGE age of about 7, or 8 depending on where in the world you’re talking about the 2nd/3rd grades – you’ve got some 7 year olds, some 9 year olds, because of how birthdays fall on calendars, but they’re JUST AVERAGED OUT as 8 years old – THE SEVEN year-olds would be getting this, too.
A class of them who meet daily, you could take a fucking thermometer, (Obviously around these kids, don’t talk about our “having a ”fucking” thermomemeter”) and get a big chunk of white butcher’s paper, and put it on the wall, a big tape sorta, or maybe better yet a few feet of 4 inch paper tape like for paint-work etc – draw some lines across, showing all the kids, ”Today, Wendnesday the 12th,” then “friday, (sat sun diff color, we aren’t in school to read the temps, those days)
and TAKE those kids out at the opening school bell for a morning low at school,
and TAKE em out for the last break or have a rotating group of two, or three go out and measure AFTERNOON temps RIGHT as the bell for leaving sounds,
record TIME to the MINUTE, temperature to the 1/10th,
kinda show the whole class, how we measure stuff,
and after about three months, when in alllllllllll those 7, 8, and 9 YEAR-olds, had it firmly in their heads, that “Yeah, we’re not fucking this up, we’re out there every day, we know wtF we’re doing,”
one day, start talking about what an AVERAGE is, and just SHOW them, saying “You know how we teach you little sweet babies about counting, and we sometimes don’t use it so you, the people we teach, might not know what we USE arithmatic for. Let me show you, how we can know, using plus and minus, what might be going on today.”
You take the kids from the cool mornings in spring,
to the afternoon temperatures,
you take the kids to the warmer mornings in the summer,
ultimately, obviously, in the fall,
but just for your FIRST class,
you show them all that you can create an AVERAGE that shows you if you need a sweater tomorrow morning, but you can’t GUESS, what DAILY temps would be, JUST by knowing the average.
You can EASILY teach that principle to 8 F.U.C.K.I.N.G. YEAR OLDS, and THAT’S the KIND of argument that BREAKS these GOVERNMENT scams because the CHILDREN – start MOCKING them to their FACES.
COULD YOU or COULD YOU NOT teach that principle about average temperatures, to a CLASS
of THIRD-GRADE, 8 YEAR-OLDS?
I mean- REALLY- ISNT that JUST the SORTA THING, you’d E.X.P.E.C.T. – read my words yO,
isn’t THAT what YOU’D E.X.P.E.C.T.
if YOU were DRIVING around looking for schools,
and you passed a Montissori or other kinda ‘hands-on,’ ‘practical, physical experience assisted learning schools?
What you’d actually expect if you walked into one of those practical learning classrooms? There’s a real bird, in a real cage, there’s a POSTER with how birds are all lungs, warm bodied, SENSITIVE to environmental stuff BECAUSE of their lungs, the ”canaries in mines” story, there’s a transparency of the bird’s bones, overlaid on some bird sitting on a limb,
and over in the corner by the window there,
there’s some TAPE on the wall…
you can’t see what’s on there real well, so you kinda smiling, looking around at all the stuff going on, you drift that way past the aquarium, the little garter snake in the terrarium, the little herds of insects, yada yada, all kinds of everyday things, opened up so you can see what’s inside them like pencil sharpeners, which have completely clear shrouds, all this stuff for 7, 8, 9-YEAR OLDS,
and oH! I see you have some VERTICAL LINES on this TAPE,
and I see you have the little $128.99 WEATHER STATION, with LOGGING of TEMPS,
where the kids have seen teacher SET the LOGGING TIMES for when the KIDS physically check,
part of the lesson is going to be about how
ABSOLUTELY reliable, proper automation can be,
compared to using people to do the recording,
and how even with 3 people checking each day, the averages JUST aren’t as GOOD as those taken by the MACHINE,
you hear the words, ”toward the middle of the year we show them about AVERAGES and how the AVERAGE TEMPERATURE on a day can PREDICT whether you might need a SWEATER tomorrow, or SUMMER WEAR…
yes or no? EIGHT YEAR OLDS can EASILY be taught that – those peoples’ stories about predicting as much as they do
You’re OBVIOUSLY going to be teaching them that SO-COMMON FACT about averages,
that – you can’t PREDICT the EXACT SPAN of TEMPS from the AVERAGE,
it might be + 40 and – 40, and the average is still zero,
it might be +4 and – 4, so the AVERAGE is STILL ZERO,
But that you CAN aggregate an accurate AVERAGE,
from DAILY info…
This is one of those arguments that meets Einstein’s standard for whether you really know WtF you’re SAYING:
CAN ya TEACH it to a 7 year-old? If you can, YOU’VE got a fraud buster. If ya can’t, you’re kinda doomed because other adults aren’t trying to convince you. You don’t matter, you can be neutralized.
They’re trying to convince the 7 year-olds. The 14 year olds. The 16, 18, 20 year olds. THOSE are the ones that matter, not you. Me, you, – if we don’t have the MORTAL COLLAPSING at the knees DREAD that THEY look STUPID in front of KIDS – they don’t give a FUCK what we say, and
YOU’VE just watched TEN YEARS GO BY and THAT be the STAMP of this. They don’t give a FUCK what a scientific consortium says, THIS is for the SOUL of the WORLD: KIDS being ”the world” because THAT ensures the frauds, a TOMORROW as HEROES among the LUIDICROUS, ”cold baths is heedurs” barking ILLITERATES and INNUMERATES they’ve PURPOSELY CREATED so –
they’re just plain easy to LIE, ROB, RUIN, FOOL, USE, ABUSE, and PUT TO WORK MAKING THEM some TAX REVENUE to PAY THEM to DO IT to them.
This is NOT complicated.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, have and are RUNNING COMPLETELY, RUINOUSLY AMOK,
JUST LIKE They DID when they INVENTED the POT’S LIKE HEROIN SCAM.
I’m sorry. I’ve got a decent tablet it’s running Android 7, and about half the damned internet, there’s no right-click for menus, at all.
and MADDENING as it gets, when I’m typing, EVERY time I click a spot to edit, not only do I have the most atrociously poor path to cutting, pasting, DELETING, etc – the fluggling screen, INSTANTLY upon FINDING and RESTING at the point my cursor needs to be, SHOOTS up about a HALF page before I begin to type, then as I type, the line I’m typing ROCKETS to the VERY bottom of the screen.
Can you imagine if Microsoft released two, successive editions of Windows, and in BOTH of them, not only was right-click menus a VANAISHED artifact of YESTERDAY that you just don’t have now over about half, to 3/4ths of your work,
but that they NEVER MENTIONED it to anybody?
I had been noticing, because I started USING ANDROID more – about the time Marshmallow came out. I just figured, I didn’t know wtF I was doing, that one day I’d understand, so I’ve been going along here for nearly two years, – I realize now, it’s nearly two years – that I’ve been battling Android more, and more as I’ve used it more –
and I looked it up a couple of evenings ago and – they just *BLiP* LOST right-click menues, and also OTHER page location control and – FUCK it, we LOST it and don’t know WHERE, – ”YEW JIST NEAD TWO YEWS MOAR TOUCH-SCHREEN TECKNALUGIES”
is kinda of the basic message from – Oh! ….. Google.
Wow, why am I so NOT surprised, just shocked their gullible user base hasn’t really said a fucking word, about complete lack of use of a mouse’s 2 of 3 basic functionality buttons? Actual LOSS of one of the bottons across a LOT of software environments.
I capitalized the ”USING ANDROID” because I was mad, LoL I’m sorry guys. I realize now why I didn’t know Marshmallow lost functionality, I kept a couple of Android products that were just pre-Android 6 of my own, and never got a new one but man.. they LOST MOST of their features of a main production oriented pointing device and – it just never really bubbled to the surface a lot, till somebody FIXED it?? WOAH, what does THAT tell you about GOOGLE TALKING about INCONVENIENT to THEM,
TRUTHS?
I’m not claiming – obviously – you who have Marshmallow/Nougat (Android 6 & 7) equipment didn’t know but I’m remarking how UTTERLY CLEAN most modern conversations are about it,
EVEN among a WORLD of people EXPERIENCING it on a DAILY basis.
I was ONE or two editions away
from the editions that had the problem
and NEVER really saw it mentioned.
That’s an INSANE level of QUIET – about TWO separate EDITIONS of what’s probably the world’s LARGEST mobile OS, I look it up and see a FEW blog and forum questions about it a couple of years BACK and then … hardly a word.
Is it gonna become a big movement? Obviously not, several hundred programmers, several thousand programmers’ jobs depend on everyone shushing those who want to make a big deal of it, and doing it all as informally as humanly possible lest someone sue the fuck out of Google and make them pay back for several thousand hours’ lost productivity to some huge group who bought Android products, based on some sort of business model.
But it’s a sorta ”Well, there it is, in yet another area of life, where Google simply ON their OWN without any impetus from politics, simply brainwashes an entire generation that they’re better off with a product going BACKWARD practically to the ONE BUTTON MOUSE.
When you have people in some industry where their JOB is simply MAKING YOU SAY YES, THEY’RE GREAT! – and you have GOVERNMENT turning GOVERNMENT into SIMPLY MAKING YOU say YES, what they’re doing is GREAT –
wtF can ever go wrong, there?
RK @ 2018/08/17 at 3:22 PM
“Where am I wrong?”
None of that was wrong.
Yes, they compare the warmest slice of the atmosphere, at its bottom, with the radiating temperature which in fact is pretty much decoupled from the bottom-of-atmosphere temperature.
So, the pretense is that the RGHE is why the bottom of the atmosphere is warmest, i.e., the RGHE is the explanation for why there is a temperature gradient.
The RGHE is supposed to be the explanation as to why there is a temperature gradient, from warmer to cooler, going from bottom of atmosphere to top in the troposphere.
However, the trivially-calculable lapse rate, -g/Cp, factored for water vapour condensation, already explains where there is a temperature gradient, and Nikolov anf Zeller formally explained all this although it had been known from -g/Cp for many decades.
The RGHE tried to stand in for something that already has and had an independent explanation.
RK @ 2018/08/19 at 8:09 AM
“Have I got it yet?”
Yes you have it.
Also consider that the physical temperature sensors are ALL located only at the warmest slice of the atmosphere, not throughout the whole atmosphere. If they took a string of temperature sensors vertically to the top of the troposphere, they would likely then get an average BELOW the radiating temperature since there is more spatial volume of atmosphere at colder temperatures at higher altitude – the shells at larger radius at higher altitude. They measure only the smallest and warmest atmospheric shell at the bottom of the atmosphere.
We already know from -g/Cp, the lapse rate, that this smallest shell of atmosphere at the bottom of the atmosphere will be the warmest component of the series of atmospheric shells to higher altitude…but they then attribute this to the RGHE, instead of the already-known lapse rate cause.
So it’s a hijack.
RK @ 2018/08/19 at 8:24 AM
“Is this correct?”
Yes. Only total energy is conserved, and flux is not a conserved quantity because of the geometric considerations involved.
Thanks, JP, for chiming in and confirming my take on it all, so as not to allow me to ramble on in my own twisted version of mistaken notions. Bouncing my wording ff an expert keeps my words honest to the reality. Thanks again,
So, I continue to reflect: I’m just amazed at that making-output-the-input realization. I don’t know why I only two days ago finally got it. It seems so simple now. Yet it is disguised by one simple fact and that fact is the false underlying assumption that the definition of the quantity being balanced DOES qualify for balancing, when it does NOT (i.e., not a conserved quantity). The fundamental mathematical definition of flux does NOT qualify it for being related by the mathematical definition of “equals”. It’s sort of like saying, “Corn into the microwave equals corn out of the microwave” — well, no, something has happened to that corn to make it not quite what it was going in — corn is not a conserved attribute, whereas the mass of the corn might be. (^_^) … or is that stretching the idea too much?
The flux density of sunlight coming into planet Earth enters a HEMISPHERE. The planet, as a WHOLE, yes, takes in the energy of that sunlight at that density of entering the HEMISPHERE. The planet Earth then distributes the energy from that flux density over the ENTIRE SPHERE.
It’s like directing a water hose at a wall (I think) — the water hits the wall in a concentrated stream, but that stream spreads out and runs off the wall in a film over the whole surface area of the wall. The same amount of water runs off the wall as impacts the wall from the hose. Greenhouse “theory” would have us believe that how the water runs off the wall is how the water impacts the wall, and that the wall must be adding more water to make the volume of impacting water equal the volume of run off.
Hey Guys – look at this amazing idiocy! LOL My god these people are so amazingly stupid. I mean these are the dumbest humans who have ever existed, and they have “higher education”! LOL…they are so sadly stupid.
Just to reiterate more clearly my latest grasping of the idiocy:
That’s right. It is embedded with paradox.
Looking at that video you posted, I see the convoluted way the cooler radiating upper atmosphere is supposed to warm the lower surface by … “somehow getting the temperature back up” on the surface so that the cooler upper atmosphere will have the correct energy to radiate.
Hugh ?! I know, it’s the same old story, but, to see it spoken so in-your-face yet again makes me say again, “Hugh?!”.
The upper cooler atmosphere heats by NOT adding heat but by slowing cooling that does not add heat either, which causes the surface “somehow” to heat up so the cool atmosphere can do what it does (i.e., COOL) . The surface has to heat the upper atmosphere so it can cool, but this is really the cooler atmosphere heating the surface. Seriously?
Yep, seriously. That’s how stupid they are.
… and, by no means, does this violate any thermodynamic laws. [say this in a confident, friendly tone, with a British accent, and it is the God’s truth, right?]
Sickening. Disgusting. What sick disgusting people with no brains and no ability to think and reason.
Gross goblins.
“thermogoblins” — the new terror. Just when you thought thermobillies were scary enough.
Thermogoblins have the appearance of normally intelligent humans, but this is just a disguise. They can be quite charming in person, and they can appear to command the language with great skill. But, like vampires, you can only see their true appearances when they open their mouths to talk about thermodynamics.
They, unlike vampires, thrive on sunlight, BUT sunlight that is only half as strong as that which normal humans experience in reality. They live in another dimension, where Earth blinks back and forth between two alternate realities — one where there is a sun of half strength on side of the globe, and another where there is a sun on the other side of the globe, again at half strength.
These other-than-human creatures spend their lives pin ponging between alternate realities, and when, per chance, they might pause long enough to interact with normal humans, they report their experiences of alternate realities as though they were OUR reality, with the two worlds conflated, so two suns of half strength shine on the globe at once, and two suns of half strength HEAT the globe and cause dire climatic circumstances.
Awesome 🙂
Yeah I’m remembering the whole thing once you mentioned lapse rate, it’s all coming back to me.
Gosh I remember I was watching that going on thinking… oh man… this is fuckin tragic. A man, backed SO far down he’s one of the LAST FEW, on the PLANET
who even WILL,
is having to REBUT:
“Hay YaW, A COLD BATH’S uh HEEDuR, EVuRBoDiE SeZ sO, AWWWWWL the signtists saysotwo!”
I have been very surprised – pleasantly surprised, there wasn’t a big round of people committing suicide. Sometimes when huge scams hit, people whose entire world was built around presence midst some field of endeavor and, field of colleagues – people get tired, they see their friends’ careers being demolished, go someplace quiet, and kill themselves.
That was in the days when Anthony Watts was banning everybody who even mentioned ”laws of thermodynamics” from his website, and was poring over ever post that had the words fraud, illegal, fake, ‘magic gas’ and was banning people who woudn’t stop saying ”A cold bath isn’t a heater” etc.
Hopefully his chest will implode and he’ll die as soon as possible, and Willis Eschenbach will be passenger in the Winebago that subsequently tumbles off a cliff when they’re out “bonding” along the coast in California together.
Those f**ng hillbillies. Watts, a college dropout, and Eschenbach, a f**ng mentally ill, hitch-hiking street musician with a degree in psychology from 1976 or whatever… completely demolishing everyone they could CATCH who would tell them 29% off THE TOP of TEMP CALCS and REFUSING to ACCOUNT the COMPRESSION COMPONENT of GAS TEMP,
isn’t “A COLD NITCHURGIN BATH dun COME uh HEEDuR.”
From “Backurdistical rays, comin off the insulation in the air that dun made 29% less reach the planet, of coarse making enough energy come out, that it amounts to enough to raise the entire planet AND cold nitrogen bath, 33 DEGREES, over what it would have been, if those SAME gases didn’t REMOVE the 29%.”
“Yew cain’t say it’ain’t SiGNTSiE NunnAYeW Kin! NUNNA YEW!”
Remember when that fucking wacko Watts, was baiting scientists, by starting threads, libeling people, then when they showed up to defend themselves, he would curse them and ban them, then encourage everyone else to talk about them like they were sub-human dirt?
I remember that motherfucker showing up and squalling that, “I jist come back frumma big CON ferants and FOWND OWT Muh WIFE dun LEFT me!”
And then, of course,
“i AiN’T NEVuR EVuN SEEN it COMIN, YaW!”
I remember thinking, ‘Man… what a HUMAN RAT… just a human RAT. The very human being standing on the OTHER side of the creek with John KooK from skeptical signts, claiming he can’t figure out WHY he’s being LEFT, or WHY it was RELAYED to his evil, sub-human acting ass.’
And remember when he was dropping the line, repeatedly that he’d been ‘working with authorities to root out skeptics who really, didn’t have any place in the argument” ?
And hey – remember the web page ”Profile of the Sociopath”? Look at Anthony Watts.
He’s not GLAD to realize a COLD BATH isn’t a HEATER,
he’s ANGRY that people are ‘hurting scientists with words” who had spent the past… 15, 20 years, SWEARING the laws of physics don’t work the same on Venus. One planet over.
That was Hansen who started that and he was running computer programming grants scams in the 60s and 70s.
He became chief of Goddard Institute of Space Sciences in 1980, -maybe 81, and was squealing that shit as soon as he became head of GISS, because I remember it was one of his BIG side arguments he made a show of breaching to Engineers
who said that he didn’t know wtF he was saying, they’d been flying CRAFT to Venus, they knew very WELL the temperatures on Venus matched Real (later renamed Ideal) gas law calculations.
That was when Hansen REALLLY started falling out BADLY with the Engineering sections of NASA where they were flying the craft over to Venus along with the Russians for those 25
Venera-program Venus fly-bys (13 of them, landed craft endeavors)
As a matter of fact, at one time, I was talking about Harry Huffman and interleaving discussion about the Venera flight readings because I’d found a blog page I guess it was, with some Venera instrument readings on it and considered it at the time, to be a win, people would look it up, see Harry say Magellan, go look around for VENERA and find it themselves.
I never really had any hope of starting a war of F.O.I.A. requests for VENERA instrument readings, but I considered it a COMPLETE win,
to just MENTION VENERA and let everyone look up for themselves that – yeah, we’ve landed, working with the Russians, 13 fucking craft on that planet. And there are NO instrument readouts for those expeditions, being TROTTED OUT.
Where the FUCK are the instrument readings.
WHY the FUCK can’t anyone ever remember ANY in depth, worthwhile
scientific discussion of them by NASA?
WHY don’t ALL KIDS, remember their VENUS teachings in the 5TH GRADE,
where ALL the INSTRUMENTS are COMPARED, and they’re ALLLL SHOWN,
how the HYDROSTATIC CONDITION, the PRESSURE, creates a DIRECT effect,
on the temperature of VENUS?
Because in 1980, James Hansen was already in full swing, encouraging his Democrat political buddies to hush-hush Venus because of ”National Security” or wtfEVER STOPS CHILDREN WORLDWIDE from KNOWING VENUS OBEYS GAS LAW PERFECTLY,
instead of what JAMES HANSEN SUPERVISED TELLING THEM: that the LAWS of PHYSICS on VENUS have something WRONG with them, for goodness’ sake,
so there is a REALLY GREAT ”GHG EFFECT” causing WARMTH.
Uh why are children worldwide taught that?
Why doesn’t EVERY SINGLE PERSON READING MY WORDS,
HAVE in MIND that LEGENDARY POSTER they ALL had POP UP in their SCHOOL
at one time or other, of
ALL the VENERA CRAFT,
and
ALL the ones that LANDED?
That’s not important?
Why doesn’t everyone reading what I’m saying,
reflect back on THE COMPARISONS of the
VENUSIAN vs EARTH Atmospheres, reminding us of that
LEGENDARY DUO, or TRIAD or FOUR-FOLD COMPARISON
that EVERYBODY has to LEARN, for the SAT/other scientific TESTS?
To FLY 25 craft there, LAND 13,
and not ONE of us – I certainly can’t – and I’ll bet maybe
one in a hundred can, such posters of some VENERA craft, DO exist –
I’ve never seen one showing them all,
but why am I – of ALLLLLLL the people who talk about the atmosphere and all this,
for the most part,
practically the SOLE PERSON you see going ON and ON
about having LANDED 13 CRAFT
on VENUS
and knowing FULLY WELL the laws of physics there operate IDENTICALLY,
to any 800 DEGREE KILN, HERE? [ There’s a little gravitational difference. ]
WHERE IS all that INSTRUMENTATION DATA?
THAT ALONE PROVES
the people purporting this scam to be REAL, KNOW it’s FAKE.
They KNOW of the VENERA programs.
They KNOW the INSTRUMENT RECORDS EXIST.
They KNOW they DON’T WANT them OUT to the PUBLIC
because
THEY KNOW there is ZERO EVIDENCE their CLAIM
is real
and that EVERY single INSTRUMENT shows EXACTLY what it would show in a KILN,
on EARTH, with the gravitational difference worked in. It’s not a whole lot,
and again,
we KNOW it functions just like one on EARTH
BECAUSE WE L.A.N.D.E.D, 1 3 CRAFT there.
AND because
DEMONIC RATS don’t
TROT OUT the RECORDS.
They KNOW it’s FAKE* or they’d all be SLAMMING
those CRAFT instrument readings, in EVERYBODY’S FACES.
*Even the Magellan data Harry Huffman references is enough to show one,
it’s a crass lie from first word, to last.* How the f*** could they fly the craft through,
and recover, if anything was much different, and it not be a LEGENDARY SCIENCE STORY to all interplanetary travel amateurs, professional tour speakers/authors/teachers? How the f*** could they fly the craft through,
and have DIFFERENT readings, and ALL of US not have had a FORMAL CLASS ABOUT
the *laws of fucking thermodynamics not working, ONE planet over* – No?
Why BOTHER?
Anyway I remember when you were arguing all that stuff with various people Joseph I was thinking to myself that – if this goes on long enough people are gonna start killing themselves. It happened to people in the “Pot’s like Heroin” war,
it happens ANY time, a large, entrenched government scam is discovered. People fight and fight and fight, and they just aren’t allowed by civilization to win. Civilization gets so brainwashed even peoples’ family and friends turn on them or – are simply not capable of being in the same loop so they get isolated and bang. And then another one. And then another.
This is more common around war and war journalism but it’s also part of the pot war, where EVERY honest PERSON is driven ENTIRELY out of HUGE – HUGE FIELDS of SCIENTIFIC work. Doctors used to accidentally kill several people with opioids and commit suicide occasionaly, saying ”it’s just all set up to fail,” or “it’s all just fraud designed to get people on more and more drugs,” something along those lines, and good NiGHT.
Another thing that is so disgusting
is that the people who have PAINTED themselves as the HEROES of the INTEGRITY in SCIENCE MOVEMENT – Watts, in particular but also Joanne Nova and her husband, MANY others –
they’re so f**g evil that they consider it your just deserts, for arguing with them.
They don’t give a fuck it’s impossible for a COLD GAS BATH to be a HEATER.
FuCK it, it wasn’t POPULAR at the time to KNOW that so
WE TRIED TO STOMP IT OUT : The KNOWLEDGE,
that a COLD NITROGEN BATH
isn’t a HEATER.
We did our best to stomp it out in the name of science.
Sign, Magical Gas dun made a cold bath uh Heedur et al.
CHEERING people on for MOCKING honest scientists, who have the balls to SPIT into their EVIL assed faces, ”No motherfucker, a cold nitrogen bath isn’t a heater, never was a heater, won’t ever be a heater, no matter how long the night or how dark it fucking got.
29% OFF the TOP
will not EVER, motherfucker,
be ONE MILLIONTH
of ONE PERCENT,
OVER
what went in.
You were definitely treading out the grapes during that whole period Joseph and I was very upset to see everybody – you, all you guys that wrote the book, and people in the same circle of ”cold bath never was, and never will be a heater” camp.
Kinda come to think of it though, you’re really the only one I know of who wrote the book, who maintains much of a public presence.
What you guys ought to do man, is just republish the fuckin book.
Even if it’s just a few of you Joe, you guys should make it easy on yourselves, by publishing another ”Slaying Vol II” NOTHING makes a POINT
like coming back and kicking their asses, a SECOND time. OUT of the BLUE.
JUST cause it’s FUN.
Anyway peace, I’m glad it’s turning out better for the moment.
I really was afraid someone was gonna commit suicide or have a harassment-generated high stress life type meltdown, divorces, all kindsa shit for years after I saw so many scientists saying the entire natural sciences was just FILLED with frauds, and then the HUGE backlash by the likes of Anthony Fat Tony Watts and the degenerate mentally ill street musician Eschenbach, John KooK Cook from whatever university he’s from,
The below loathesome math molester Mann, Trembling Trenberth, UTTERLY INSANE Hansen,
I fully expected and am VERY pleased there weren’t more suicides and early deaths.
Of course Watts, Eschenbach, Kook Cook, those degenerate assholes are SAD there weren’t more people destroyed by their fraud.
I had the post open a long time on my tablet – yeah – just loathesome evil math molesting and physical freakin law shitting on, goblins.
B4 U CLiCK – Imagine
”So THAT’S how a coal’d gais bath, ”
“dun’come uh HeeDuR!” How
FASCiNaTiNG!
Oh it came up simultaneously – in any case, I think I might make one. I don’t really know where to go to salt them, just give them away, though, I think I could come up with some memes, yO, for like posters and tee shirts and mugs, .GIFs LoL!
YaTHiNK?
If I make a little .gif of that I’m gonna make it blink the three sentences or clauses, in succession so the screen never gets clogged up, and Wilder’s standing there like… you… i.n.s.a.n.e…. mufusker…
Looking at this again:
… I wonder, how is it that the area relationships are clearly stated, and yet the area relationships are clearly ignored in the University of Washington diagram here:
It’s as if the disk serving to measure influx for a hemisphere gets mixed up with the disk that is the shadow of the whole sphere, and then the outflux over the WHOLE sphere gets assigned to the SHADOW of the sphere (another disk), which is now half as much as it needs to be to match the influx measured by the other disk.
It’s as if people are equating the influx disk of the hemisphere to the shadow of the whole sphere, and then assigning to the SHADOW disk, the one-fourth dilution of the influx disk. The mind is wanting a bright input disk to be balanced by a dark output disk, and the desire for visual harmony overrides the logic that would make such visual logic correct.
This is one idea about how some minds went kablooee on this.
“Talking about all that stuff” refers to the lapse-rate argument as well as others I saw you have to do Joe.
Not all that bullshit I was saying.
A disc is not a hemisphere, in fact.
A disc shadow of a sphere is not the sphere, in fact.
When we talk about areas, we cannot just forget the physical surfaces that area-numbers represent.
The 4 pi comes from a physical surface of a sphere. We cannot just take that which is derived for this surface and assign it to another surface, for which the derivation NEVER applies.
Yeah, I’m gonna calculate the area of my floor underneath me here, and I’m gonna assign this square-foot area (in the world) to the actual size on a photograph of the area that I snapped. I’m gonna assign 144 square feet to, say, 300 x 300 pixels. They’s thu sAem, ain’t they’s?
Okay, maybe it was an honest mistake, when the first person made it, but, come on, even I finally saw the light. And there are people tons smarter than me who obviously have not. Or maybe they have, and they will not admit to or correct the error. They’re either stuck somehow honestly, or they are lying outright, knowing the error. I hope they’re mostly stuck, … distracted by emotions, discomfort, or some other thing. If not, then this is as serious as some people seem to suggest.
I really have not wanted to go to that place “some people seem to suggest”. But how can people smarter than me fail to encounter this basic flaw in understanding of the most basic principles of what they supposedly “know”?
For Allen E:
One reason they get away with it Robert is because the instananeous values for the International and American Standard Atmospheres, are calculated in a somewhat similar way.
There’s a VAST difference between simply calculating what’s called an instantaneous value,
in the form of an average – and predicting what the values are gonna be in the future, when all you have is a set of extremes leading to the average, you have today.
Going back over this I guess I see why you’re so flabbergasted it is even promulgated as science by anyone, at fucking all, ever Robert.
Yeah, it really is, that fuckin bad. They’re claiming that – AN INTERNATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE, THEY can’t even CALCULATE CORRECTLY – based on the stuff that you can most certainly fly by, we’re all witnessing it every day, it’s all real math, arriving at real values, that make our equipment work according to our guaranteed tolerances, reliability etc
but those people – don’t even get the CORRECT TEMPERATURE, in the FIRST place due to their
not processing the compression component of temperature
and it being MANDATORY they come up the 33 DEGREES SHORT
that actually IS part of the International & American Standard Atmospheres.
Then claiming to USE this
to PREDICT.
E.v.e.r.y. last sign, symbol, syllable, sentence, statement, ever made about it, is
abject falsehood: it is ALL – CRASS, transparent FRAUD, Robert.
It is NOT mathematics.
It is NOT physical EVER. e.V.u.rrRR.
It is NOT hypothesis.
It is NOT theory.
It is the STORY that a COLD NITROGEN BATH that is laced with cold, light blocking REFRIGERANTS,
knocking 29% off the top of ALL temperature calculation
not only spontaneously REGENERATES nearly 30% of the sun’s energy,
but the TINY SLICE of 3ishPERCENT COLD REFRIGERANTS,
are spontaneously regenerating NOT ONLY the 22, 23% THEY send to space or absorb,
but are ALSO spontaneously regenerating the OTHER percentages, the OTHER gases,
and dust
remove,
and ARE THEN – just this TINY section of 3% water or whatever, and I guess 9/10ths of a percent all the others CO2 BEING ONE of THOSE,
the fucking claim is that it’s MAINLY CO2 ALONE generating ALL this ENERGY that mainly the WATER blocked,
and THEN,
SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATING, sufficient percentages that the entire cold nitroxy bath,
AND the PLANET’S SURFACE, are 33 degrees HOTTER
than if the cold nitrogen bath hand’t removed the 29%
and the 33 degrees was on top of that.
Remember when you met Allen Eltor Robert? You’ve never met me, the person behind Allen Eltor;
remember when you met me and were wondering why the blank I would act the way I did about it?
I was crafting Allen Eltor to sorta be the enraged conscience of scientifically minded people, everywhere: and I told you – THIS ISN’T a SCIENCE DISCUSSION, this is FRAUD BUSTING.
Ok now.
I’m gonna tell ya one more time, buddy because the Allen Eltor character exists to do that and only that, forever: a cold nitrogen bath isn’t, wasn’t, can’t, will not be a heater.
Not a little bit, not one tiny millionth of a MOMENT.
There’s not a big one that’s a heater,
there’s not a small one that’s a heater,
there’s not a new one that’s a heater,
there’s not an old one that’s a heater.
There’s not a dense one that’s a heater,
there’s not a rarified one that’s a heater,
a cold gas bath, ain’t a heater, Robert, and I don’t care if god herself said one is.
She’s a lyin whore and so is every math molesting, mentally minimalized moron she sends.
Every last one and we are going to stomp them out, moron by moron. Whether you ever help and admit it’s all true and start spreading the word or not. I showed you what anonymous accounts are, you need to start spreading the word.
It’s ALL a f**g lie.
Every
Last
UTTERANCE that it could possibly be true if HALF the laws of physics were re-written,
is AS RIDICULOUS as CLAIMING you can PREDICT daily HIGHS 50 years from now,
from knowing the DAILY AVERAG TODAY.
Oh THAT’S RIGHT, – THAT’S WHAT it IS.
So you tell me Robert. Has there ever been in ALL THERMODYNAMICS,
a COLD Nitrogen bath taking 29% off the top of temp of a sun-warmed rock,
that heated it one MILLIONTH of ONE DEGREE?
How do you MISS the REAL Temperature of a SUN WARMED ROCK
then MISS the temperature of the BATH that’s CHILLING it 33 degrees EACH
because they’re TELLING you the COLD Nitroxy bath is DRAGGING the TEMPERATURE
of the PLANET SURFACE, UP, Bob, DRAGGING it UP 33 degrees,
over what the temperature of the surface of the rock would be,
with NO COLD NITROGEN BATH,
HEATING it 33 DEGREES and REMEMBER it’s not really the
GIANT COLD NITROGEN BATH
that’s the HEATER,
it’s the 3% COLD REFRIGERANT GASES .
Well, ok I’ll tell ya the truth. It’s ONE of the REFRIGERANTS
that make up the actual 9/10ths of 1% giving us 4% cold refrigerants Bob,
that magical gais,
cawl’d, SEA OH TOO. Yaw. FaSCiNaTiNG, isn’t it?
Yeah, I think you’re kinda getting it Bob.
And from JUST above here, all about how the magical gaissiiness dun tirnt’ uh coald nitchurgin bath in two uh big ol Heedur,
we create an ‘average global temp’
that we predict the average temperature of it all,
5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years out.
What PART of that, DON’T you think is science, Bob?
ANTHONY WATTS, JOANNE NOVA, WILLIS ESCHENBACH,
have all BUILT THEIR LIVES MOCKING MEN who tell people THAT FRAUD is FRAUD.
BECAUSE THEIR DYING DECREE is that NOT ONLY is it REAL, but SCIENTISTS WORLDWIDE – who
understand wtF about a COLD GAS BATH BEING A HEATER,
agree that – THE BASICK SIGNTS uf that crap is SOWND, YAW. IT’s SOWND, SIGNTS.
The John KooKs.
The Roy “I dun pointed muh thurmomitur at the sky and mayzhurd me uh backurdism, YaW!” Spencers of the world.
The “C.E.R.E.S. data looks like cataclysmic unstoppable hellfire in the sky!” Trenberths,
the “We can calculate the temperature of gases without referring to pressure” James Hansens of this world.
They’re all together that if YOU DON’T BELIEVE that’s REAL, YEW AIN’T SiGNTSiE.
They’re fraud barking maggots to the last, lying vermin one of them and science is going to rejoice like a little girl with a new kitten every time another one of them dies, and they can do NO MORE HARM to SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY.
They will harm SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY : NO MORE when the LAST one of those maggots is cremated, spread on the ocean to make fish food, buried and their damned tombstones kicked over and vanished by various science fraternities worldwide.
EVERY WORD they’ve spawned to humanity about it being real must be STUDIOUSLY SCRUBBED from the HALLS of science for WHAT IT so OBVIOUSLY, TRANSPARENTLY IS: PUREST,
PUREST,
F R A U D.
IN your FACE.
“I DARE you to TELL me it’s not SCIENCE”
I TAUGHT YOUR CHILD a COLD NITROGEN BATH is a HEATER.
WHAT are you gonna DO about it?
Now ya see why people get upset Bob?
And every time you spend a week playing around,
Every time some hillbilly who can’t tell you if a cold gas bath is a heater or not
acts like he’s got the authority to tell people they HAVE to admit SOME of it’s real,
another BILLION CHILDREN ARE TAUGHT THAT DAY, that COLD ATMOSPHERES
are HEATERS and USING FIRE makes the SKY get HOT,
so WE HAVE to ”STAND BY SCIENCE” and talk to mom and dad,
about how THEY’RE fucking STUPID
and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
ARE SAVING THE WORLD,
using SCIENCE
and that MOM and DAD are getting in the WAY of science,
when they object to being subjected to such PURE FRAUD.
No?
And the no-good maggot eating mufuses who say some of it’s real but that they’re just skeptical of part of it? They’re the MAIN BASTION against REAL SCIENCE ever gaining a FOOTHOLD.
If the FAKES and DROPOUTS are REALLY WORKING for SCIENCE, why is ANYONE who can WIN a SCIENCE ARGUMENT DISMAYED to even FIND them SKULKING AROUND INSULTING the SCIENTISTS who say NONE OF IT’S REAL?
They’re NOT. They’re PART of the SCAM. And till you personally can just walk into any conversation anywhere and shut em all down in three sentences, YOU’RE part of the scam, Bob.
Now you know how the chemists and doctors of medicine felt when these SAME DEMOCRATS started the ”POT’S LIKE HEROIN so WE HAVE to GET EVERYONE on OPIOIDS” scam.
Dr.s killed themselves, Robert. Many did through the years, being forced to give people obviously nasty shit, because Democrats decided
they were going to run everyone’s medicine.
And today they do.
And MILLIONS upon MILLIONS have been CRIMINALIZED,
MILLIONS have had the negative impact of lifetime pain = death by drug addiction,
end of story.
You have lifetime pain, YOU must either deal with it with NO help whatever except aspirin etc,
or die on drugs
or alcohol.
MILLIONS.
It’s called a scam Robert and as much as it seems like a game, it’s not a game you’re supposed to treat like it’s a game.
It’s a game that you’re supposed to treat like theENSLAVEMENT of the PLANET
to MORE DEMENTED
OBVIOUS
TRANSPARENTLY FAKE,
DEMOCRAT SCIENCE FRAUD.
And that every day you can’t get it through your head there’s never and never will be such thing as a cold nitrogen bath that heats what’s in it,
another generation of children can’t get it through theirs. Because the integrity in science movement depends not on you just being some kinda slick character who can figure things out, but you having the pure nerve to go generate some anonymous accounts and do some real good, not feeding the mobs, and sucking publicity ass, but simply showing children worldwide they don’t have to put up with that fake f**g sh*** and how to go about shutting the motherf***s down with zero back talk.
It’s not your JOB to teach CHILDREN to sit and nod that a cold gas bath is a heater because – because ANYTHING.
It’s your JOB as a decent human being, to try to go save those poor innocent bastards. Every last f**n one of em you can because all people have to do Robert, is SIT AROUND and do fuckin NOTHIN’
That’s the for HORROR for MILLIONS as Demonic RATS PLUNDER the INNOCENT GLOBALLY.
AGAIN.
That’s hilarious Robert – hey – I’m just giving you the sorta manifesto run-down about all this. Allen Eltor is a character I invented to talk about busting the fraud, and as swiftly as possible upon coming on some of those motherf***rs eating children’s brains.
It’s gonna be here for people reading years into the future potentially and it’s very important people never lose sight of the fact this scam hatched right after 9/11 when the entire world was kinda paralyzed at what was going on internationally, and up comes Al Gore threatening to arrest people for ”hindering these great scientists’ work” and claiming the scientists were ”being terrorized” by being subjected to ‘endless Freedom of Information Act Requests from citizens trying to hinder science.”
Willis the fraud barking scab and science darkening maggot Eschenbach got his SOLE claim to fame as being one of the very first ones to make multiple data requests to some government employees and get told “Nah, fuck you.” That’ was actually his start in being part of the climate scam, he asked them what they were doing, and they wouldn’t tell him. He fell in with Fat Tony Electric Cars on Ebay Watts and they, among the first people to be internet celebrities for even noticing something was wrong, JOINED the FRAUDS simply cause they were BIGGER DEALS AT the TIME. Today they’re both over at Tony’s Magical Gaissiness Emporium, hiding behind the viewers who just TOOK OVER his website like they did ALL the magic gassers’ sites, and Watts reaps the fame and revenue of the website and – oh yeah – sells his electric cars on Ebay, and PEDDLES SPAGHETTI SOFTWARE to CLIMATE FRAUDS for a living.
“We got programs tuh draw yew sum FANTSIE, FANTSIE SIGNTS STUFF, YAW! It kin draw CLIMIddiE STUFF, an EVURTHANG! WheWEE, hear at FAT TONYS’ WE GOT EVURTHANG, suh YAW’LL COME BACK NOW, ya HERE?”
Yeah Tony the Dropout finally made it big along with Mann, Hansen, KooK, Spencer and the others, Willis Eschenbach and Mark Mosher and the other incredible science molester creepsters who just gushed that shit onto the heads of literally BILLIONS of people. It’s blankin horrendous.
They’re just the hideous, of the hideous.
Howd the scam start? COMPUTER FRAUD.
How’s WATTS make a living? Electric Cars on Ebay
and
GRAFTING SOFTWARE for COMPUTER FRAUDS.
And others, but who do you think a lot of his CUSTOMERS ARE?
These CON MEN writing the BOOKS, and generating INCOME STREAM from BLOGS
about FAKE SHIT.
So that’s what was goin’ on, during the early days of the scam exploding. Later, people are gonna be wondering, “What was happening back in those days, that so much PURE fuckin fraud could just SWALLOW the NATURAL SCIENCES WHOLE? ”
Losers, dropouts, various scum, just drove every last honest scientist out criticising
Leaders, graduates, various administration grants scamming scum,
driving every last honest scientist, out of ALL Natural Sciences, especially,
the peer-review.
The people Anthony Watts TO THIS DAY FILTERS HIS WEBSITE for CALLING FRAUDS,
were seen PLAIN as DAY LAUGHING about getting the LAST HONEST SCIENTIST,
in ALL the WESTERN WORLD’S PEER REVIEW JOURNALS of any import whatever,
FIRED- because HE wouldn’t APPROVE PAPERS leading to – COLD BATHS are HEATERS.
They were on WORK EMAILS laughing and scoffing,
few weeks later, the LAST HONEST MAN in ALL WESTERN PEER REVIEW: FIRED.
A few months later, an insider at the lab snitched them all out, releasing a thousand emails he picked out of many more, showing what the scientists had been doing.
All through the emails, OVER and OVER and OVER: “Cull this email.” “Delete this.” “You guys probably want to go back and delete from this date __ to _____” “Remember everybody these work emails are subjet to FOIA requests, scrub your emails!”
So if it seems like all I do is fuss about it, it’s important the students of BOTH TODAY and TOMORROW KNOW peoples lives were being COMPLETELY WRECKED by the hangers-on to the
REAL scientific movement that told and TELLS the WORLD TODAY: There is no such thing as ANY
cold nitroxy bath, laced with cold light blocking refrigerants,
that stops 29% of warming energy from reaching a rock
that warmed that rock one TENTH of ONE degree.
EVER. Not YESTERDAY, not TODAY, not TOMORROW.
The people who believe ANY of that stuff can be real ARE a MAJOR PART of the SCAM
by DESIGN
as the Democrats taught this to children since the 1980s, as HANSEN was CHIEF of G.I.S.S. since about 1980. HE and HIS COHORTS, DESPISED by the FLIGHT ENGINEERS of NASA,
used NASA’S NAME to TELL CHILDREN all the way to PHDs that THE LAWS of PHYSICS
DO
NOT
WORK on VENUS,
that ”SOMETHING is DIFFERENT, SCIENTISTS CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHAT.”
I’m always on the soap box about all this because it’s important people have CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of HOW so much FRAUD could UTTERLY TANK the ENTIRE Western World’s Natural Sciences.
Peace
I’m sorry it sounded like I was telling you that stuff I said in a mean way Robert, I just know exactly what political people train intellectual people to be like and I’m really saying it to everybody, who realizes what the blank is going on. This is about DARING you to make yourself a target for them to TRAIN their CRIMINALS to DEMEAN, HATE, LOATHE, and ASSAULT.
IT’S IMPORTANT you uNDERSTAND, Bob – again sorry for saying it to YOU personally – why I said,
you NEED to disconnect your name from it if you don’t have to connect it.
WHEN you REFUSE go GO ANONYMOUS you TRAIN IDENTITY ASSAULT-CLASS POLITICS.
I’m sorry for being a smartass to you. I kinda wish I could take that back.
No take-backs necessary, Allen E (the “E” should stand for “extrEme”) (^_^) … or “Entertaining” … or “Every last one u muthas best hold on t’ya draws, whin yu incounter this geye”
Yeah, I admit it, I regularly hang out at the gassy emporium. I stay up to date on the latest emergence of crazy, which is mainly what the website seems to have become a filter for.
You see, it’s enough to just not completely believe that warming is a big deal. This way you have an endless supply of comedic material to post from all the people who DO seem to believe that warming is a big deal. You get to make a whole website that captivates millions of people with the comedy of warmist extremists, and I think this is what WUWT does. When you ban real talk about real science, what else do you have to post?
It’s my feed to the outpourings of the extreme warmists, and I find this entertaining.
You know, it’s like a bad accident — it’s horrible to see, but you just can’t look away, and you sort of want to be there in all the excitement over disaster. Hey, I’m human — what can I say? Stupidity is tragic, but it’s entertaining. I feel dirty now.
More than kinda, actually, Robert.
Oh, and I ALWAYS use my real name. I welcome assaults, I guess. If I cannot defend my own name, then I’m not worth shit. So, in effect, I say, “Bring it.”
I have no paycheck to lose from disagreeing with the thermo challenged. It’s all a learning experience. (^_^) I can take a hit, as long as it doesn’t physically take me out.
Is this correct:
Global average temperature is a representation of molecular energy of near-surface molecules.
Planetary emission temperature is a representation of photon energy that exists in the entire atmospheric volumetric shell, extending from the ground-water surface to the upper bounds of Earth’s atmosphere.
Temperature is temperature, yes, But temperature measured as energy of molecules is NOT the same type of temperature measurement as temperature calculated as energy of photons.
A temperature measured as molecular energy can hide the total electromagnetic energy that gets molecules to energy states represented by the near-surface temperature. For example, air of high humidity can hold more energy than air of low humidity at the same temperature.
Near-surface temperature, then, is NOT a complete measure of electromagnetic (photon) energy, when you start with just near-surface temperature as a basis for determining total energy.
On the other hand, emission temperature IS conceived as a true measure of electromagnetic (photon) energy, when you do start with photon energy as the basis for determining that energy’s corresponding temperature.
Where total energy is concerned, thermometer-measured, near-surface temperatures have “holes” in them — gaps where we cannot know how much actual photon energy went into their kinetic energy determination. Planetary emission temperature, on the other hand, because it is conceived as a complete measure of energy density, is a different metric that does NOT have these “holes”.
So, two overriding considerations STOP any comparison between planetary emission temperature and global-average, near-surface temperature:
(1) The two temperatures represent volumetric shells of two vastly different thicknesses.
(2) The two temperatures do NOT necessarily represent the same total electromagnetic energy.
Adding or subtracting these different categories of quantities, as if they are the same sorts of measurements is, therefore, improper.
Yep.
Thanks.
Global average temperature accounts for dynamics in a fraction of the thickness of a volumetric shell represented by the thin blue line encircling the globe, while planet emission temperature accounts for a much larger span of dynamics in a much larger volumetric shell represented by the thick gray ring encircling the globe.
Comparing the two temperatures accounting for these vastly different volumes is to equate the accounting method for the small volume to the accounting method for the massively larger volume that CONTAINS the small volume. This amounts to a categorical error, I think.
Great visual!!
I was just working on an attempted insightful post, when my finger accidentally hit one of those buttons on the side of my mouse, and POOF! — my work-in-progress disappeared (damn it, that shouldn’t even be possible!)
Let’s try again (typing where I can save/copy/paste this time):
I was thinking about the “slowed cooling” version of the radiative greenhouse theory again — pondering some inconsistencies that a person, upon first encountering the argument, can somehow miss:
(1) Adding more CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere increases the volume percentage of the atmosphere that uniquely radiates.
(2) The additional radiation is going in all directions, but (roughly speaking) half goes out to space, and half comes back to Earth’s surface, where the half coming back does NOT have enough energy to cause additional surface heating, while the half going out to space IS allowing MORE cooling in proportion to the added CO2 amount.
(3) The half of added radiation coming down CANNOT heat, while the half of added radiation going out CAN cool.
Yet radiative greenhouse theory seems to want us to believe that radiation that CANNOT heat … CAN slow surface cooling, even while it IS cooling the planet as a whole.
CO2 slows surface cooling, while it cools the planet. What?! Am I missing something?
@Robert Kernodle,
If CO2 (or any other gas) can “slow down cooling”, then heat can pile.We know that heat cannot pile, for if it could, we would be reading in the papers about people burning down their house from leaving the heat on too long.
@Robert Kernodle,
Also a thought came to mind from your discussion about average temperature and planet emission. The relationship of energy to “temperature” is like the “Strong Man” or “High Striker” carnival game.
To move the slide up the scale, closer and closer to the bell at the top, requires ever more increasing force. That is, to move the slide 4 feet requires twice the effort that it took to move it 2 feet. Etc..
This is also how “heat” works. And I see this same effect every time I play golf. To hit a golf ball 200 yards with my driver, takes virtually no effort at all. But to hit it 300 yards (just an extra 100 yards), takes practically all the effort I can muster. “Heat” works the same way.
But it’s even worse than that for “heat”. Without a constant supply of energy, everything cools. To increase “heat” you are also swimming upstream, as entropy is fighting against you. This also makes “slowing cooling” more difficult. Just ask any furnace manufacturer who works very hard to make their furnaces more efficient. It is very difficult to “slow cooling”, and few gasses can do that to any measurable degree, those that can are extremely low emissivity gasses (opposite of CO2).
I was looking at the following article from 2014 again and thinking how full of s*** it seems to have been, with the authors tripping over themselves to save the dying sky dragon.
… forgot the link (stupid !): http://news.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110
Clueless.
I located the full-text original article, and just a cursory scan of it induced head shaking to such an extent that I doubt that I can force myself to study it to try to understand how these guys have woven themselves into their convoluted delusions. Here’s the link for those who might want to torture themselves:
Click to access Donohoe_etal_pnas_2014.pdf
My first-impression synopsis:
CO2 warms the surface by reducing outgoing long-wave radiation, but somehow, at some point, the Earth starts absorbing more incoming short-wave radiation (I haven’t dug through to see what they say the mechanism is), which sustains the warming that the reduced outgoing, now-less, outgoing long-wave radiation started, but now has been taken over by the now greater incoming shortwave radiation. Cooling preceeds more warming, which causes more cooling to warm more. Brilliant !
Let’s look at a direct quote from that paper:
outgoing LW radiation (OLR) initially decreases because of enhanced LW absorption by higher GHG levels; as energy accumulates in the climate system, global temperature rises and OLR increases until the TOA energy balance is restored—when OLR once again balances the net absorbed solar radiation (ASR)
TRANSLATION:
More greenhouse gases cause more long-wave absorption, but emission usually following absorption decrease, trapping the additional absorption-without-radiation radiation, increasing global temperature, and lasting until just the right moment to re-instigate emissions that were temporarily depressed by magic (I guess).
Later, the authors somehow link this, incomprehensibly, to increased absorbed shortwave radiation — God only knows what the hell they are saying — it’s gibberish, delusion speak that only delusional insiders can understand (or pretend to understand), I suppose.
This is the worst excuse for clear writing that I have seen lately. Double talk on top of double talk, linking self-contradiction upon self-contradiction, parading as legitimate analysis and groundbreaking discovery. In other words, total — and I mean T-O-T-A-L — bovine excrement.
Too harsh ?
It was posted a while ago, but was directed to me just a day ago. Watt’s lamp and mirror experiment. I’d like to post what I think about it and see if you guys agree.
1) the experment measured reflected energy, not re-emitted energy. The reflection returns all wavelengths in the opposite direction of the incoming rays. re-emitted is in all directions.
2) This experiment has nothing to do with CO2 because CO2 is not a mirror. The re-emitted IR from CO2 is “cold”. Plus, a large portion of the IR energy absorbed by CO2 would be lost to surrounding molecules through collision.
3) the experment is flawed because it is measuring the temperature of the bulb glass, not the filament. The temperature of glass of the bulb would be less than the temperature of the filament. Having the mirror is akin to having a second heat lamp aimed at the first one, both heating the glass. Watts should have measured the temp of a bare open filament with nothing around it, and then tried to see if temperature increased because of a mirror. It would not.
I actually have a few posts here debunking that “experiment” by Watts…and yes, I discuss exactly what you have here!
Brilliant minds…
Guys, please help me with this one:
“The diffusion of heat does not transform the type of energy.
You continue to be unable to answer the question. What form of energy are you claiming the heat transforms to?
Go ahead, provide an answer. Just remember that the kinetic energy of the molecules of the gas is in fact the internally stored heat energy.
You really are making a fool of yourself. It’s good that you are too ignorant to realize it.”
That is from one of those AGW knows-it-all in response to my statement that the heat energy CO2 captures is dissipated in surrounding air molecules as kinetic energy.
George these people are sick psychopaths. Looks like you caught a real live one there…the goblin puss of its remarks is repugnant through the screen.
The heat in question DOES NOT RETURN TO THE SURFACE TO WARM THE SURFACE FURTHER.
Joe, thanks for the quick reply. Am I wrong to say that the heat energy of CO2 can change states when absorbed by surrounding air molecules? Is it still just heat or does it change to the energy of motion (which I know can be heat).
For CO2 to have “heat energy” it would have to be warmer than the surrounding molecules in order to be able to transfer energy as heat.
But your statement: “the heat energy CO2 captures is dissipated in surrounding air molecules as kinetic energy.”
is fine I think. This isn’t the RGHE though.
Joe, yes I know it isn’t the RGHE. I think what I’m being made fun of is that this person claims that the kinetic energy absorbed by surrounding air molecules is still just heat energy. In other words, in gasses Kinetic and Heat energies are the same thing. I am puzzled by that. Is that true? Again, thanks for your time in responding!
Oh I see. Oh goodness! Heat and temperature are NOT the same thing at all. When heat is transferred then the thing it transfers into raises in temperature, and when equilibrium is then found then there is no more heat present. The material may have a temperature and corresponding internal energy and entropy state, but this is not heat. Heat is only a form of energy, when transferring. After that it is gone, and the energy is now internal energy of the material. Kinetic energy and heat are NOT the same thing. That is like saying kinetic and potential energy are the same thing. Energy has many different forms…heat is one, kinetic, potential, thermal, etc., are others.
“heat energy”
Heat, by definition is the transfer of energy from a high temperature object to a cold temperature object which are in contact. Hence, “heat energy” is redundant.
At least kinetic and potential energy have the same units. Heat and temperature do not. People often mix up heat and temperature. Very common. That’s because people think of heating a home increases the temperature, your winter coat retains heat, misnomers like that.
Exactly.
Hi Richard. Sorry to jump in here, but I think I might be able to help a little bit by trying to convey the way I visualize the actual physical relationships of what “energy” and “temperature” (or “heat”) is. (Joseph of course is free to jump in and stomp me on any of this, but I believe he will mostly agree).
* “Temperature” is nothing more than the measure of the intensity of the vibrational state of a given molecule.
If you visualize this molecule as a spinning bicycle wheel, then “temperature” would be synonymous with RPM. You could say the wheel is spinning at 400 RPM .. or the molecule has a “temperature” of 400k.
* “Energy” is the kinetic energy a given molecule processes and demonstrates by its vibrational state (the energy causes this vibration). The greater the vibrational state, the greater kinetic energy a given molecule possesses.
If you visualize this molecule as a spinning bicycle wheel, then the “energy” of the wheel might be calculated something like
E
=
(
m
c
2
)
2
+
|
p
c
|
2
In other words, the “energy” would require calculation of the vibrational state and mass and potentially other environmental factors (frictions, etc…).
Now, to increase the “temperature” of a molecule from another molecule, either by radiation (photons) or conduction (physical contact) requires that the source molecule must have greater kinetic energy (greater vibrational state), and thus a greater “temperature”, than the receiving molecule. That is, given two molecules, Molecule A and Molecule B, in order for Molecule A to transfer energy to Molecule B, and thus increasing its “temperature”, Molecule A must have a greater vibrational state (greater kinetic energy) than Molecule B … there are no exceptions to this .. whether it be by radiation (photons) or conduction (physical contact). It is actually the “energy” that is being transferred from one molecule to the other, not the “heat”. The “heat” is the result of the “energy”. “Heat”, in and of itself, is not a “thing”, it is a “result”.
Using the bicycle analogy again. If you have a spinning wheel spinning at 200 RPM and you wish to increase its rotational speed to 300 RPM by slapping your hand along its tread, you must impart a greater amount of energy against the wheel than it already possesses, otherwise the wheel will either maintain state, or energy from the wheel will transfer to your hand and the wheel will slow (transfer of energy away from the wheel).
Molecules work EXACTLY like this, and there are absolutely no exceptions to this physical law of our universe. It could not be otherwise, for if it were, our universe could not exist.
Oops, crap, sorry Joseph … my Math MTML didn’t work out as I thought it might. Sorry .. it was supposed to be a nice little fancy dandy formula for calculating the energy of a rotational mass.
Sorry!
Richard, I thought you might like this video … it never gets old .. but this is the sort of shit we are dealing with. They are literally brain dead. This is just too funny.
John Kerry on the Greenhouse Effect
Thanks. I actually took a thermodynamics course while at university, which was 40 years ago now (Still have my text). I recall the prof asking the class what temperature was. No one answered, so I did “Something we measure with a thermometer”, for lack of anything else to say. The prof said, “Exactly”, then explained what you did here.
Re: Kerry.
Go ahead, provide an answer. Just remember that the kinetic energy of the molecules of the gas is in fact the internally stored heat energy.
This statement alone seems bizarre to me. Kinetic energy of an ensemble of molecules IS the energy. There is NO “internal”, where it exists as a ghost, with respect to the energy being described as “kinetic”, is there? — kinetic energy is inter-molecular or between molecules. “Internal” energy would be WITHIN each molecule or INTRA-molecular, and maybe electromagnetic energy might have energized the innards of molecules to translate/rotate/vibrate [not sure] in such a way to become kinetic energy between them in an ensemble, but it’s not really clear how exactly this might happen.
This statement has already tagged the internal energy of the molecules absolutely as a one-to-one correspondence to the external energy that they exhibit together, and this one-to-one correspondence, between internal and external energy, does NOT exist — it’s more complex than that, right?
What I’m trying to get at is that there seems to be great confusion over WHAT and AT WHAT SCALE of reality things are being energized. The insides of molecules, INTRA-molecular, can be energized, and the WHOLE molecule can be energized. The INTRA-molecular energizing is NOT necessarily a match to the INTER-molecular energizing.
In other words, there seems to be confusion between the atomic/sub-atomic scale and the molecular scale, where people are loosing track of what THING is being energized. I think of THINGS being energized, where “energy” is a quality of a THING, … NOT a stuff in and of itself.
And, yeah, that Kerry video — I saw for the first time three days ago. Interesting how it shows up here in the same week I saw it somewhere else. There are not enough face palms to express it.
The mathematical expression necessary to express it, itself, would be an absurdity or undefined like one divided by zero. The best we might do is to think of it as infinitely stupid, but really it is stupidity so extreme that we cannot even define it. That’s why a physical, bodily gesture is required, because physical gestures transcend all written symbols.
Guys, Thanks for continuing the discussion about Kinetic and Thermal energy. I wish someone would go address this asshole on cfact. His handle is ‘ evenminded’. He wrote this:
Sorry, but argument by links that you don’t understand is not a valid discussion method. Here is the proof of my claim above. There is 100% chance that you will not be able to understand it.
Here is the calculation:
x is the spatial position on the surface
t is time of day
T(x,t) = T0 + dT(x,t)
T0 is the average temperature
dT(x,t) is the fluctuation that can depend in any way that you like on position and time as long as it satisfies the constraint that it is the fluctuation about the average. The high and low temperatures and their spatial and temporal distributions can be affected by any mechanisms between the atmosphere and the surface that you like (convection, evaporation, conduction …) aside from the GHE. None of these internal heat transfer mechanisms change the proof.
Since T0 is the average temperature that necessarily implies that:
(1) integral over the surface and over the time of day of dT(x,t) dS dt = 0
This is assuming that the temperature is periodic over a day. If you want to change the periodic time to a year, that is fine, just change all instances of t_day to t_year. Since there is no GHE all of the energy that is emitted by the earth to space comes directly from the surface. Now, the energy emitted by the surface per unit area per unit of time is:
q = sigma epsilon T^4
-> q = sigma epsilon ( T0^4 + 4 T0^3 dT + 6 T0^2 dT^2 + 4 T0 dT^3 + dT^4 )
The total energy emitted by the earth over the periodic interval t_day is (if you don’t think that the temperature is periodic over a day, then you can change the time period to a year and change t_day to t_year):
integral over the surface and over the time of day of
sigma epsilon ( T0^4 + 4 T0^3 dT + 6 T0^2 dT^2 + 4 T0 dT^3 + dT^4 ) dS dt
Assuming that the effective emissivity for LWR of the surface is homogeneous (this is a simplifying assumption and the analysis would change slightly if this is relaxed), the first term is simply, sigma epsilon T0^4 t_day 4 pi Re^2, where Re is the radius of the earth.
Assuming that the emissivity of the surface is homogeneous (the averaged emissivity of the surface for LWR is >0.95), the second term is zero because of (1). Again, if you wish to argue about this homogeneity then there will be a slight modification to the result.
The integral of the next three terms is strictly positive because 6 T0^2 dT^2 + 4 T0 dT^3 + dT^4 >=0 for all T0>0 and for any dT >=0 or = 0
Now, the energy received by the earth is the insolation from the sun adjusted for the albedo,(1-a) q_sun, over the projected area of the earth times t_day:
Q_sun = (1-a) q_sun pi Re^2 t_day
Now, the energies in and out must balance otherwise it is not a quasi-steady state, so Q_earth = Q_sun
-> T0 = [( (1-a) q_sun/4 – dq)/sigma/epsilon]^(1/4)
The largest average temperature is if there are no fluctuations and dq=0 (again inhomogeneous emissivity will change the result slightly).
QED
It can be found here: http://www.cfact.org/2018/08/23/my-viral-climate-video-was-smeared-as-fake-news-here-are-the-facts/
“evenminded”, or better, “does-he-even-have-a-mind” , appears to be using an average near-surface temperature in the equation,
q = sigma epsilon T^4
to arrive at “q”.
That “T”, however, can hardly be assumed to represent a temperature where all energy dynamics are known for a gas-atmosphere-affected “T”.
The temperature of a near-surface location on Earth’s surface does not contain all the information about all the energy that produced it. Using the T^4 relationship here, then, seems to be ill advised, because the equality does NOT say positively how a temperature translates into energy.
The “T” in … “q = sigma epsilon T^4” … is not the same kind of entity as the “T” in does-he-even-have-a-mind’s … “T(x,t) = T0 + dT(x,t)…, as I think I understand things.
The “T” in the “T^4” relationship is derived from a black body that has different energy dynamics than those dynamics that determine a near-surface temperature affected by a gas atmosphere.
I don’t think that the equality is absolute (true in both directions), even though it IS an equality. I think it should be a one-way equality, or maybe it should never have been expressed as an equality. [I could be wrong]
Robert,
Thank you for your reply. I know these people are using smoke and mirrors to try and prove AGW/GHE is real. Theirs is a shell game with Energy, Heat, and Temperature being interchanged inappropriately. My expertise isn’t at the level to catch them at their game. I need to learn more.
Actually, it’s pretty simple. Cold objects cannot make warmer objects temperature go up. CO2 in the air is cold. The ground is warmer when the sun is shining on it. Impossible for CO2 to warm the surface nor the air at the surface. End of story. Then watch the AGW claim that slowing the rate of heat loss (sic), slowing the rate at which temperature drops, is actually increasing the temperature… Yep. That’s what they argue. So not applying the brakes on your car as much means you actually go faster.
Exactly.
I just have to laugh at this. Apparently there is some sort of “special” energy that is “heat” energy, which differs from “kinetic” energy?
You should ask him what differentiates between the two energies. What are the boundaries and how can we measure them?
That quote just cracks me up. Whoever you are discussing this with is way out of their league here, and perhaps believes in Unicorns and Pixie Dust. What is his/her stance on Tooth Fairies? .. Does he/she believe Elvis is still alive?
George, you could not be more correct .. stick around a while, you will be absolutely astounded at some of the mental gymnastics you will see from those people. Very impressive. They should make it an Olympic sport!
evenmindless [I mean, “evenminded”] doesn’t seem to set up the flow of his mathematical argument very clearly, in my opinion, to say nothing about his confusion with the T^4 relationship and temperature measurement on Earth’s surface at a given time of day. Mixing up these location-and-time-reference individual temperatures with any T^4 temperature (which I think is what he does) is pseudo math, or as I like to call it “mathemagic”.
My calculus is rusty, but I really do not recognize his dT(x,t) standing alone like that. And I’m not seeing where he defines what “S” is. So, leave out a critical turn in an explanation of directions, and blame somebody for not understanding how to get to the sought after destination. Make it obscure, and then accuse somebody of not understanding because the whole damn flow is UNCLEAR, to say nothing of my suspicion that it is a mass of confusion at a mathematical level competence that I maybe once had, but now I’ve forgotten too much.
I know that it’s tough to write out mathematical symbolism in most blogs, but, for me, that is no excuse to make an already hard-to-understand symbolic treatment even harder. I somebody wants to make a mathematical argument, then they need to do it right, in a word processor that has the math symbols, taking pains to insert those symbols properly, defining every singe term meticulously, create a .pdf of the composition, save it to a dropbox location, link to it as a reference, and stop gloating over somebody else’s inability to understand what is NOT understandable as presented graphically.
Take every opportunity to hide behind obscurity as an opportunity to claim a false victory over somebody’s inability to understand a lacking presentation — smart. /sarc
Here, in my judgment, is the fatal flaw in evenmindless’s mathemagic:
Now, the energy emitted by the surface per unit area per unit of time is: q = sigma epsilon T^4
What unit area is he referring to? Is he claiming that his location, “x”, is a surface area where a near-surface temperature is measured? — well, that can’t be right, because the location of a temperature-measuring station is NOT an area, and this measuring station is NOT measuring a given area — it is NOT even measuring a given volume.
A surface-station temperature measure is NOT strictly associated with a set volume, let alone a two-dimensional patch of area on the Earth sphere. A temperature-station measure is just a temperature-station measure of a nebulous three-dimensional region within a gaseous atmosphere — CLOSE to the surface (NOT even ON the surface). Surface-station measures are NOT individual measures of a black-body surface that we can then integrate over.
If I even halfway follow his flow, then I have to point out at least two major blunders in just that one statement alone. To review:
(1) Thinking that a near-surface temperature-station measure is a measure of an Earth surface- area patch at a given time of day — an area for which I do not even see him offering a definition.
(2) Thinking that a near-surface temperature-station measure is a measure that can be treated as
a black-body measure related to the T^4 law. That would be like saying that 70 degrees measured in Texas at 20% humidity accounts for the same energy as 70 degrees measured in Florida at 60% humidity. Florida’s 70 has more energy than Texas’ 70, because of the heat capacity of water vapor, which the T^4 law (Stefan Boltzmann) is blind to, because these temperatures are NOT individual black-body temperatures, and they cannot be treated as individual black-body temperature patches.
I went over to the cfact link, but I could not find anything by “evenminded”. I could not find the relevant exchange of ideas mentioned by George.
Oh well, even so, I feel as though this has led me to a clearer view of why planetary emission temperature cannot, in any way, compare to global average temperature.
Each individual temperature that goes into the global average calculation is NOT a black-body derived temperature. The T^4 law could NEVER apply to any one such temperature. Hence, the average of a collection of temperatures, for each of which T^4 could NEVER apply, also could NEVER be used collectively like a black-body-derived temperature, … because the components themselves are NOT black-body-derived temperatures.
The fact that Earth AS A WHOLE can be treated as a black body or a part of Earth’s WHOLE ATMOSPHERE can be treated as black-body-math-worthy does NOT mean that temperature portions of the body viewed as a black body can be considered as black-body portions, where THEIR atmospheric-gas temperatures can be smeared out into this black-body, solid-body consideration for the WHOLE PLANET with WHOLE ATMOSPHERE.
Okay, that probably causes anybody else’s mind to get tied in knots, but, at least, it’s a start to get my own mind maybe better organized to make more sense later.
Robert,
Thanks for your comments! You are very well informed and I enjoy reading your comments. The link I gave should have directed you to the article “My viral climate video was smeared as fake news.” There are over 800 comments now and it would be a pain in the rear to go through them all. My handle there is ‘Immortal600’.
I don’t know if I do our side any favors by arguing with those AGW fools. I’m not a scientist but I see that the stuff Joe Postma puts out as being very logical and it makes sense. I know Joe is not the only one out there that disputes AGW/GHE. I have read Harry Huffman’s blog, Dr, Ed Berry’s blog, Principia Scientific, and others. There is a lot of information out there that, I believe, destroys the AGW/GHE myth. I salute all of you that are carrying the fight to expose this nonsense (that includes you, Geran, over on Dr. Spencer’s site). Thanks to you, Arfurbryant, Geran, Richard, squid, Joe, and Allen Eltor for all you do !!!
Please excuse me if I left others out. I can’t remember all the names. LOL
FYI. Though I specialized in evolution at university, I’m not a scientist. I’ve been writing software for business professionally for 30+ years. That means I’m highly logical, plus I have to understand the wide range of business’s processes and models them. That means I see how flawed models can be, that they can model anything you want.
That said, for some 20 years I defended evolution from creationism,including debunking, and publishing against Robert Gentry’s Polonium Halo instant creation BS. I see so many similarities between creationsts and AGW cultists. Ironically, the very same organization I belonged to back then, the National Center for Science Education, has completely swallowed the AGW dogma.
The tide will turn, once more people see the illogic of their premise, the violation of physical laws required, and the fact that the climate will simply not behave as they predict. It’s just a matter of time.
Evenminded has made the claim (he makes the claim that he wrote this to Dr. Anderson) that Dr. Anderson is wrong on something. He says this:
Your solution for the case where the sphere and shells have emissivities not equal to one is obviously wrong. I can provide you with the full solution for a single shell if you like and we can discuss the differences. However, if you simply consider the case of one shell with a blackbody sphere and make the shell have a near zero emissivity and a transmissivity of close to 1, then the solution for the temperature of the sphere should approach the solution for no shells. I’m pretty sure that you will never be able to solve this problem correctly without using the fact that the shells emit in both directions (out and in) equally and according to their temperature and emissivity as indicated using the S-B law.
I think the dude is pure BS. I wish I had the expertise to expose this fraud!
George,
without knowing the full context of that quote, I could not offer any insight, because I don’t know the exact set up he’s talking about.
I can tell you, and you might already know, that the shell game and the plate game have been fully addressed in other topics in this blog — whole articles devoted to these and their destruction. Usually, there is some fundamental misconception involved at a very basic level, and they have built upon this foundational error with a chain of further errors that look consistent, WITH RESPECT TO THE FOUNDATIONAL ERROR. In other words, the meticulous arguments are pretty good — pretty good grand displays of screwed up fundamentals, that is.
In other words, … sophistry.
For example, I recently read and commented here on an article by an extremely well “educated” PhD, who quoted all manner of intricate details regarding quantum mechanics, energy states, vibrations — the whole gamut of deep physics knowledge that only a pro might have.
Then he went totally haywire in asserting that all his knowledge of quantum mechanics could be the foundation upon which greenhouse theory rested, without clearly relating what he just wrote to exactly the application of principles he claimed applied specifically to greenhouse theory.
It’s as if all his deep physics “knowledge” was a smoke screen to convince readers of his credentialed intelligence, and then his higher intelligence went to hell in the specific application of this supposed deep understanding.
A person can know the lingo and not know what the lingo really means. This person can create his own new language with the lingo without perceiving that his new language is not consistent at the deepest level.
George says: “I think the dude is pure BS. I wish I had the expertise to expose this fraud!
George, you have more expertise than you realize. Just being able to figure out AGW is a hoax, indicates you can think logically. You cannot out debate someone that wants to believe. They will throw pseudoscience after pseudoscience at you.
You win just by engaging them with the basic facts. They hate that.
🙂
Robert, thanks for your response. I wasn’t aware of the shell and plate games on here. I will have to read them.
Geran, Thanks for the encouragement. I know what you mean about the believers. I see you have to go through that with that clown David Appell and others over on Dr. Spencer’s blog. You do pretty well, I must say.
I should have put a link to where that clown posted that Dr. Anderson is wrong. It is his blog article titled: The Nested Black Body Shells Model and Extreme Greenhouse Warming
His comment is dated August 5th. I was hoping Dr. Anderson would answer him. Does anyone have any feedback? Thanks!
George,
It’s hard to give feedback on an argument that I cannot find clearly laid out anywhere. The comment at Dr. Anderson’s blog is written under the handle, “Anonymous”, and his comment is just a general statement saying that Anderson is wrong, with zero detail to support his claim, … only an invitation for Anderson to invite him to provide his own correct solution. If I were Anderson, then I would NOT respond to Anonymous’ lame-brain invitation either — why accept an arrogant invitation from a commentator who does not even have guts to use his own real name, and not willing to immediately offer his “solution” without grandstanding his self importance by requiring an invitation for his solution, as if his solution is already worthy enough for the invite. That’s so f###ing presumptuous! Just the manner and tone of the commentary paints this person as an ass. That’s the extent of my feedback on that at this time.
Robert,
Of course you are right. The dude is an arrogant ass that I would love to see someone put him in his place! These AGW/GHE kooks have one thing in common. That is their ignorance is only exceeded by their arrogance!!
George asks: ” I was hoping Dr. Anderson would answer him. Does anyone have any feedback?
No specific feedback, George. But generally, Dr. Anderson ALWAYS gets it right.
Joseph Postma tends to follow the same track….
geran, I hear you. No one has been able to refute Joe, Dr. Anderson, or any of the other slayers. The only thing I see coming from the AGW crowd is an attempt to smear the messengers not the message itself. That says volumes about them and their “science”.
I was just reading through this old post here:
I was paying close attention to the exchange between Joe and Roger Tallbloke. Roger was doing some masterful sophistry, I believe thinking he was honestly addressing Willis’ attempt to convince people of the reality of a greenhouse effect. This is a lesson in masterful exchange — Roger seems like he will not let up. Joe never lets him get away with the last word, striving patiently to point out, in great clarity, where the mind has gone wrong.
A more entertaining, less patient, response by Joe shows up later with some other guy (I forgot who). It’s the funniest insulting rant on stupidity that I’ve ever read. I was laughing throughout. Great material.
Robert, thanks for that link–a trip back in time.
Tim Folkerts was the clown he still is. But, then there was this:
Anthony Watts says:
2013/03/12 at 10:07 AM
This thread is a perfect example of why WUWT is a “Slayer Free Zone” and shall remain so.
Talk about clowns….
I posted one more comment on that thread.
I posted a comment on that thread too, following JP’s.
That thread was before my time here, and I’m sorry I missed out of the fun, so I had to take us all back in time, I guess. (^_^)
Again, the Tim slam was hilarious.
Anthony’s “Slayer Free Zone” is not so free as he might fancy, if he still holds to this position. Just check out the latest Friday’s “Open Thread Friday”, where you will see comments posted (one of mine included) alluding to “slayer” sentiments about the farce of grimhouse fearing.
Robert,
good comeback to Jim Masterson. Well done.
Someone should do a post called, Why A Near-Surface Air Temperature Is Not A Black Body Temperature… with a follow-up post called, Why An Average Of Near-Surface Air Temperatures Cannot Be Compared To A Calculated Black-Body Emission Temperature
Then send the links to Chris Monckton. (^_^) Sorry, Chris, as polite and charming as you are, you’ve been duped.
Doctor Roy had a little pop at me over at fat Tonies.
Gary Ashe
The earth doesnt have a climate, it has climates from tropical to glacial.
The planet does not have an average climate or energy state i.e. temperature.
1 ReplySeptember 8, 2018 9:11 am
Roy Spencer
so, you’re a denier denier, eh?
2 ReplySeptember 8, 2018 1:00 pm
Gary Ashe
Luke-warmer gate-keepers of the RGHE as yourself are an embarrassment to science , Roy, no spine, to affraid of the so-called consensus, with your back-radiation garbage.
Postma makes achump out of you every time you tangle.
Have a nice day.
0 Reply EditSeptember 9, 2018 1:40 am
Haha nice! 🙂
Gary A,
I don’t know what a “denier” is. Anybody responding to me with such a stupid question would, first, be told that it is the utmost stupid question in the world, and coming from a supposedly intelligent person, it is an even stupider question.
I mean, what the hell kind of question is, “so, you’re a denier denier, eh?”
Could he be a little more f###ing specific? What the hell is he even asking you? Does he just assume that you know what he means? .. that you even accept what he might believe his definition is? … and why would he assume that you even validate his definition to even dignify his stupid question with a stupid answer?
I could NOT answer the question with either a “yes” or a “no”, because I do not recognize that the question makes any sense. It’s name calling (even worse, forcing an assumed universally accepted definition of the name) disguised as a stupid-ass question.
Dr. Roy is a hemorRoyd for even pretending to ask such a stupid-ass question. This is exactly the sort of question that Al Gore asked someone once, when his views were challenged.
I have no idea what he meant.
Robert i just grabbed the oppo to stick the wellie to him.
Nicely ofcourse,….wouldnt want to offend.
Where is “fat Tonies”?
whattsupwiththat George.
I wonder how long fat tonie will put up with me.
Doctor Roys thread promoting his new kindle book and the greenhouse effect.
Gary Ashe
You cant wipe your arse with a kindle.
Which is all i would do with a book promoting the mythical concensus RGHE Hypothesis.
0 Reply EditSeptember 12, 2018 6:18 pm
You gotta love climate science, its like CSI,
Not only do they know storms are now man-made, they can even name the man making them….
They have even named the suspect Donald J Trump.
The suspect has been secretly causing chaos for atleast 30 yrs that they know of.
They suspect his 747 has been chem trailing atleast 2 decades.
His plans to throw the world into climate chaos and get elected the most powerful man in the world coming to fruition in 2016.
Now he can complete his nuclear storm world program.
Can Micky Mann CSI save us from Trump.
I Look forward to the TV series ,, CSI [tcb] Penn state the Mann files.
CSI [ crime scene investigations ]
CSI [ climate science investigations ]The Carbon brief, The [Micheal ] Mann files
Micheal Mann will play Micheal Mann.
Gavin Schimdt will play Gavin Schmidt.
Gary, thanks. I should have realized that.
Gary Ashe, you are on fire!
Loved your replies at wuwt. Surprised you got through the extreme moderation (censorship).
Good job.
Hi George, sorry I am late to the conversation about “shells”, “spheres” and “plates”. The only response I have to people who go on about those things, claiming they prove the “greenhouse effect”, is —> “and if I just arrange these magnets like this .. look, free energy” … it’s exactly the same thing .. exactly .. it is the very same game that has been playing for centuries.
Search YouTube for “magnetic wheel perpetual motion” .. you will get hundreds of videos of people trying to convince you they have created a perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion machine). The “shells”, “spheres” and “plates” garbage is exactly that same fricken thing.
squid,
Thanks for the info.
squid,
Thanks for the info. I appreciate it.
Following the lead from Gary Ashe, I ventured over to Spin-cer’s site. Spin-cer censored me months ago, so I was unable to comment, but I noticed something interesting. Spin-cer now is calling himself a “skeptic”. He used to prefer “lukewarmer”.
Is something going on?
Just curious how some of you might answer the objections that come up here:
It’s the off-topic comment about the ideal-gas-law calculation of planetary near surface temperatures.
Joe,
What would be your response to this statement:
“Satellite data assumes the TRUTH of radiative physics.. the core physics
of AGW. Like satillite data? Then you have to accept radiative physics. no sky dragons
can use satellite data and be logically consistent.”
… from this WUWT post:
It’s just a dumb throw away statement that means nothing. Detecting EMR by photoelectric effects is not the RGHE. All that a satellite could do is detect EMR by some photoelectric mechanism. Yes big boy, that’s radiative physics. And it’s not a confirmation of the RGHE. You could try to get more clarity on what exactly they mean…but it’s probably quite moronic.
Thanks for the quick reply.
My response over there was, I was not aware that sky dragons denied the truth of radiative physics, when done properly.
One good reply is ”Yeah I’m aware of the radiative physics that have 100% of available warming energy from the sun
radiating out till it’s hitting the top of Atmosphere,
And I know about the cold light blocking refrigerants
in that cold turbulent light blocking, atmospheric bath,
making 29% of it radiate out to space,
never warming the planet, reducing final radiative temperature
the full 29% as the very first step in global surface temperature calculation.
And I know you better not tell me anything more than 29% less, radiated out,
or you’re the fraud barking fake I caught telling people on the internet,
he thinks less energy radiating in
makes more radiate out.
Like you’re telling me you think now. You believe the people telling you the
29% less energy radiating into the planet, that cooling by the Atmosphere as the very first step in global average surface temperature calculations,
is making more than 100% of availabl energy radiate back out.
What part of ”less radiating in can’t mean more radiating out,” don’t you understand here?
That’ll cheer him up.
The next step is for you to say ”your handlers couldn’t get their hands on those Sunlight top of Atmosphere vs Surface charts because real science uses them; so they aren’t riddled with fakery and fraud.
But the briefest overview of them all shows clearly, the cooling GHGs vastly predominating in that initial 29% cooling,
that is the very first step in assessing global average surface temperature.
Then you can say ”Any of the charts is adequate.”
Don’t link them to just one. Never. Make THEM go
through them because THEY chose and clicked the links that change their mind.
Link don’t think isn’t proper debate. Making people hate your guts till they go look it up themselves,
is proper debate. Just toss the room a bone:
https://is.gd/cGUffk
Then say ”Ozone does a little of the cooling, Oxygen does a little and in fact, Nitrogen and dust also do a small amount but they’re not usually listed on the charts.”
Make it a point to put in ”Water of course, does all that high energy visible light cooling. In fact with it’s 25,000 ppm it is itself, vastly predominate even among the GHGs, cooling the planet most of that nearly 30% initial temperature reduction of the planet..”
Then you can say ”you ARE aware, that the cooling green house gases are the vastly predominate class creating the 29% cooling that is the very first step, in resolving global surface temperature, right?”
And watch the witches squirm at the sight of the sun about to come up and someone perchance actually discussing real atmospheric energy and chemistry.
Great to see your open and involved discussions!
For my part, check out my latest climate paper;
“Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change”.
That is an amazingly clear paper on the Molar Mass method. Fantastic, an instant educational classic.
Lovely.
What a circus !
Now I know that people here might not like the website where this article appears, but I think the article is a good one:
Several months ago in this discussion thread “geran” stated:
“George, yes that’s me you see over on Spencer’s blog. I have fun debunking the nonsense from the clowns like “jelly appelly”.”
Of course he was referring to David Appell, who besides believing in the GHE, believes the presence of the earth raises the temperature of the sun!
I don’t bother debating the GHE anymore, since it does not usually change anyone’s mind. Plus my expertise is not in atmospheric physics. But if you want to learn how to defend your anti-GHE position, then I would highly recommend you head over to the Climate Etc. archives (August 2011?) where Joseph presents an excellent defense of his paper that disputes the GHE. The discussion thread is well worth the read.
But back to my main point. Geran in his discussion with David Appell also ridiculed him for believing that the moon rotates on its own axis as it orbits the earth. In fact, geran berates anyone on Spencer’s blog for believing in such a thing, and has been doing this for a year now. To defend this notion, geran states:
“tidal locking” is synonymous with NOT “rotating on an axis”. The Moon can NOT rotate on its axis because it is rigidly locked, with only one side visible from Earth.”
“Consider a “boat in a moat”, “orbiting” around a castle. The boat is so long, it cannot rotate in the narrow moat. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to “rotate on its axis”. This is exactly what we see the Moon doing. There is NO “rotating on an axis”, but there is “orbiting”
He has many more arguments, but they are all in the same vein. From a kinematic standpoint, I would have to disagree with the example regarding the boat in a moat. The boat does rotate on its own axis 360 degrees wrt the inertial reference frame for every one orbit. (fasten a compass needle through the boat’s center of mass, and you will observe the boat rotating on its own axis about the compass north arrow as it performs an orbit.)
But the question for geran is: Do you really believe the moon does not rotate on its own axis as it orbits the earth? Inquiring minds want to know.
https://www.academia.edu/attachments/57557079/download_file?st=MTU0MjE0MjQ3OSw3Mi4xMS42MS40MSw5NzE5NjU1MA%3D%3D&s=swp-toolbar&ct=MTU0MjE0MjQ4MiwxNTQyMTQyNTAwLDk3MTk2NTUw
… another good coffin nail, seemingly
Summary? It’s asking to login…
Strange. When I click on the link, it takes me directly to a .pdf download.
If it still does this for you, then I’ll download a copy at my dropbox and link to it that way.
Basically, it’s a very long paper describing how quantum mechanical principles are incompatible with “greenhouse theory” principles that attribute infrared absorption ONLY to the so called “greenhouse gases”. Any substance above absolute zero radiates, hence absorbs, in the infrared. This is established at the most basic level of theory in the most fundamental science of our times.
Hence, nitrogen and oxygen absorb infrared, and the reason that this is seemingly invisible to climate science is because they are using the wrong measuring instrument to try to detect it.
Consequently, this supports what climate scientists have vehemently denied — namely, that the sun heats Earth’s atmosphere directly, as well as indirectly.
I hope I got that right. As I said, it’s a long paper, and I have not studied it in detail yet.
I’m having second thoughts about that paper now. It is quite long, as I said, and written by an independent researcher, who seems to have lots to say, but I was first stumped by his use of a unit of measure for wavelength that I am NOT understanding — what looks like “centimeter to the minus one”, which makes no sense to me. If this is some sort of personal convention, then he needs to say what the heck it is. If it is some sort of professional convention, then it sure seems obscure to me — I’ve never heard of it.
… makes me question the rest of the paper. It raises questions, of course that need clear answers, but I’m not confident in this guy’s answers. I would need to see more expert input on it.
So, for the moment, … never mind.
Oh that’s actually just called “wavenumber”. It is a commonly-used alternative to frequency, which it is directly related to. Recal that for EM radiation, lambda*frequency = c (speed of light). Lambda is of course highly intuitive because it is a simple length, i.e. wavelength, in direct units like meters, or centimetres, etc. But when we use c as unitless and equal to 1, which we commonly do to simplify things since c is such a basic constant, then frequency must have units the inverse of lamda so that the units cancel out to give the unitless c = 1. Hence, cm^-1.
Robert, this link does not require a log in.
http://www.academia.edu/37577750/Quantum_Mechanics_and_Raman_Spectroscopy_Refute_Greenhouse_Theory
It may be the same info you found. I’ve had no direct experience with Raman spectroscopy, but his conclusions are not invalid.
As Joseph explained, “wavenumber” is a correct way of dealing with photons. Like you, I am more accostomed to wavelength. But, wavelength is inversely proportional to energy. So if you are interested in tracking energy, wavenumber or frequency might fit better.
The conversion is simple. A wavenumber is first inverted, then multiplied by 10,000, to yield microns. An example is the 667 wavenumber for atmospheric CO2. Invert it and you get, 0.001499. Multiply be 10,000, and you get 14.99, or 15 microns.
Joseph, I see your site got invaded by the “Moonies”!
Maybe you don’t want to go there, cause your site may be invaded by them….
This all started a couple of years ago. I don’t remember the context, but I put this link in one of my comments on Spencer’s site:
From there, it went “viral”. The Moonies came out of the swamp trying to support the lame video. Amazingly, the Moonies also support the GHE.
@geran,
What the hell was that? … OMG!
I can only assume geran is referring to me as the “Moonie” that has “invaded” this site.
First of all, I have not “invaded” this site. I have posted quite a few comments here, and have been quite clear that I am 100% on board with Joseph’s view of the GHE.
Secondly, I could care less whether the moon rotates on its axis or not. It is not even germane to the GHE issue, So I don’t know why geran even brings it up on Spencer’s blog, especially when his moon rotation models indicate his complete ignorance of kinematic principles.
If geran wants to make a fool of himself on Spencer’s blog, that’s his business. But people on Spencer’s blog consider geran a “disciple” of Postma. So when he presents himself as a bungling idiot in kinematic matters, people just consider him a nutcase in regards to the GHE as well. He’s not doing us any favors.
SkepticGoneWild, I don’t know if you’re more obsessed with the Moon, or with me?
For someone that says he “could care less whether the Moon rotates on its axis or not”, you sure persue the issue, relentlessly.
And as for your obsession with me:
“If geran wants to make a fool of himself…”
“…he presents himself as a bungling idiot in kinematic matters…”
“…people just consider him a nutcase…”
Have you considered therapy?
The moon rotates on its axis, which orbits the Earth.
A question: Is the following sentence true.
“3. We know that EM radiation in any given wavelength is higher for a body with a higher temperature.”
Only if the emissivities allow for it. If talking about ideal bodies, then always yes.
The Moon’s motion is purely “orbital”. That’s why one side always faces Earth. The motion is analogous to a racehorse, or a race car, on an oval track. Standing inside the track, your would only see one side of the “orbiting” object. But outside the track, you would see both sides of the horse, or race car.
What confuses people is that there are two distinct, independent motions. One is “orbiting”, and the other is “rotating on its own axis”. You can have either motion by itself, or they can occur together. Earth has both motions, the Moon only has one. If we could instantly stop Earth in orbit, it would still continue rotating. If we stopped the Moon in orbit, all motion would cease.
The funny part is that “institutionalized pseudoscience” says that the Moon is “tidally locked” to Earth. So, it is “locked”, but yet it rotates on its own axis! Pure pseudoscience.
The argument parallels the GHE nonsense fairly well, and clearly reveals how many people refuse to consider anything other than “institutionalized pseudoscience”.
I like this moon thing.
Going on the above skeptic is wrong.
The moat, try a 20ft long boat in an 18ft wide moat, try spinning that..
Visually Geran is right from inside the loop we only see one side/face of the boat, no matter what a compass tells him, that boat is locked in that perspective even if the inner ring rotates to the left or right
I will eat my ass if that moon rotates at just the right speed as explained in that vid.
If it did that’s the ””greatest”” piece of precision engineering known to mankind.
One rotation in precisely one earth year to the second, yeah righto.
Interesting, i duck ducked how do we know the moon rotates every 27 days, i got only 2 links
Space.com
Universe today……….
And the correct response to i will eat my ass is.
Salt & vinegar with that Gary….
Does a communications satellite rotate once every orbit to maintain the same interface ?.
Someone made this comment:
“Radiative flux is NOT gas temperature. You cannot simply equate Watts per square metre with Joules per kilogram. I have extreme difficulty taking seriously people who apparently cannot tell the difference between force, energy and power.”
Any thoughts? Is he right? What exactly is the role of radiative flux in our climate? I’m not too clear on that one yet. I always thought Radiative Flux was jus a bridge between two points of temperature.
He wasn’t referring to me if I don’t know WTF I’m talking about I stay clear of the conversation until I know what I’m talking about (hopefully).
More insanity. Who the heck is equating those things? Makes no sense.
And, radiative flux is PROPORTIONAL to temperature, and so…just makes no sense what they’re saying. Just more sophist gaming in order to be able to get in the ad-hom which they absolutely require in all of their arguments.
You fellows ever hear of Potholer54 on YouTube? He is the King of the global warming engine discrediting everybody who disputes climate change. I can’t imagine he hasn’t done a video on you or the PSI. Maybe he has I should look. He is well funded and organized though he claims his site is charity (typical liberal) but he is getting funding somehow because he has access to information you can’t get without connections in high places (He use to work for BBC). Anyway he and his acolytes are attacking Tony Heller right now. Yes Jo I know what you think of him but he is fighting climate even if he is ignorant of some key points like greenhouse gas he is good for history at least. I can’t excuse his ignorance on climate I mean a month ago I knew nothing about this stuff, IF he wanted to learn he would. Anyway one of Potholer’s clowns posted this on Tony’s site I thought it would provide amusement and naturally I love to hear the feedback because I always learn more every time you guys comment and I love it. This is what we fight against not because of facts but because of the billions of dollars funding the propaganda machine they control. This is only part 1 looks like it was drafted by a team and put together and he just posted it:
Looks like you’re just repeating the same mistakes, as usual. You’re repeating talking points been rebutted since the mid-20th century. Amazing. I’ll split my responses into two parts, to cover the evidence you’re evading.
Part 1: On Methane and Water Vapor
Water vapor is less important than CH4 and CO2 in driving long-term warming for various reasons, including:
a) CO2 and CH4 have a longer atmospheric residence time than does water vapor.
b) Atmospheric water vapor levels are more responsive to temperature changes than are atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels; that is: CO2 and CH4 are non-condensing greenhouse gases, while water vapor is a condensing greenhouse gas. So water vapor is worse at driving up long-term warming on its own, since it will typically fall as precipitation if atmospheric temperature drops too low.
c) Water vapor levels sharply decrease with increasing altitude in the lower atmosphere [troposphere], while levels of well-mixed greenhouse gases [such as CO2 and CH4] are more uniform with increasing altitude. Thus CH4 is able to exert a relatively stronger greenhouse effect higher in the troposphere.
d) At best, water vapor serves as fast feedback that amplifies the warming from factors such as CO2.
e) CH4 can be broken down to to form CO2, and can thus contribute to warming by contributing to CO2 levels.
f) We can calculate and measure the radiative forcing from CO2 and CH4.
Potholer54 covered a number of these issues years ago, in videos such as:
“2. Climate Change — the objections” from 00:24 – 1:28
Some sources on this, for the curious:
On points a, b, and d:
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature”
On points a, b, and c:
Page 37 of: “Infrared radiation and planetary temperature”
Section 7.3.3 of: “Introduction to atmospheric chemistry” (by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999)
Page 80 of: “Encyclopedia of atmospheric sciences: Second edition” (by Gerald R. North, et al.; 2014)
On point d:
“Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000–10 and comparisons to climate models”
“Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe”
“An assessment of tropospheric water vapor feedback using radiative kernels”
“Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming”
“An analysis of tropospheric humidity trends from radiosondes”
“Global water vapor trend from 1988 to 2011 and its diurnal asymmetry based on GPS, radiosonde, and microwave satellite measurements”
“Trends in tropospheric humidity from reanalysis systems”
“Construction and uncertainty estimation of a satellite-derived total precipitable water data record over the world’s oceans”
On point e:
Sections 2 and 3 of “Global atmospheric methane: budget, changes and dangers”
Figure 1 of “Microorganisms and climate change: terrestrial feedbacks and mitigation options”
On point f:
“Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change” (DOI: 10.1038/nature10322)
“Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing”
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”
“Observationally derived rise in methane surface forcing mediated by water vapour trends”
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997”
“The spectral signature of recent climate change”
“Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation at the surface from ground-based observations, satellite retrievals, and reanalyses”
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect”
“Changes in global net radiative imbalance 1985–2012”
“Methane is the second most abundant GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for 14 percent of global emissions. Though methane is emitted into the atmosphere in smaller quantities than CO2 , its global warming potential (i.e., the ability of the gas to trap heat in the atmosphere) is 25 times greater. As a result, methane emissions currently contribute more than one-third of today’s anthropogenic warming.”
https://www.globalmethane.org/documents/analysis_fs_en.pdf
So I just discovered you prefer Joe so I shall call you thus from now on. Has the PSI conglomerate thought about doing YouTube videos or is it not worth it? Yes constant attacks from imbeciles is pretty much the sum of all of you great scientists these days BUT Tony Heller is pretty much the only voice on there fighting climate fraud. Just questions not a big deal. I know a lot of you guys have real jobs just thought it would be cool if it was a joint effort. I wish Heller would got on the band wagon of science and stop meeting the alarmist half way. The most important thing I have learned here is if you accept the premise of greenhouse gas you already lost the battle. You guys are just freak’n awesome.
I do have a few videos here:
https://youtube.com/channel/UCDK7p7ivYprBgjDNvYwmk5Q
Am planning on more soon.
And yes, that is precisely correct about the nature of the debate! Precisely. Hence why they HAAAAAATE when you go there, and why at all costs this is what they’ve set things up to avoid. The nature of this whole simulacrum is the most important lesson in scientific history…truly.
I have watched them. You need more. 🙂
Here are a couple of threads started by someone who says there is no measured AGW effect, just all models only. The replies are hilarious and absurd.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/no-evidence.718433/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/solid-physical-evidence-of-agw-where-is-it.736134/
There are more, but these two are enough.
This is a real statement, can you imagine it?
“Well, cooling more slowly, assuming no change in input, means warming.”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/solid-physical-evidence-of-agw-where-is-it.736134/page-6#post-21751062
Evil. Dumb as hell. Cooling means warming…ok. !!!!
I asked him the question:
“What is warming while it is cooling down slower?”
No reply.
SSDD made this post that shows no indication that CO2 is warming anything using ERBS/CERES and UAH6 temperature data, they have a very tight relationship, that doesn’t allow any CO2 influence to show up:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/solid-physical-evidence-of-agw-where-is-it.736134/page-7#post-21751532
:
Oh nice! Yep, their predictions were and are entirely refuted by them not manifesting. How can that be? Because there’s no RGHE.
sunsettomy Did I just read in those comments that someone said you can’t apply the SB Law to gas? WOW good stuff here. These climate clowns are everywhere like cancer.
LOL Now I’m confused again. Can you or can’t you apply the SB law to a gas?
As a great body typically, with emissivity. And BTW…applying the SB Law to a gas is EXACTLY how the RGHE is derived anyway.
Thank you Joe. As always you rock.
He finally replies to my question, “What is warming while it is cooling down slower?”
with this,
“That’d be the Earth…… ”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/solid-physical-evidence-of-agw-where-is-it.736134/page-8#post-21752243
Stupid, stupid, STOOOPID!
These sick freaks love, love the inversion of logic through language. They love it. It’s their food. It’s their warm and fuzzy.
SSDD, Billy Bob, and jc456 are the ones who doing the big fight there, I hardly get involved because it is so absurd to roll around in it for long.
The threads headline is always like tar paper for warmist morons and some of the dumb skeptics.:
Solid Physical Evidence of AGW…. Where is it?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/solid-physical-evidence-of-agw-where-is-it.736134/
“It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence…. Where is it?”
That header comment is gold sunsettommy, flies right over the heads of those guys though, as usual.
If I could summarize their reactions it would be,”We don’t need facts we just need submission. Now bow to our seat of authority and don’t ask questions!” -IPCC (Making socialism global, one lie at a time.)