Back-Conduction and Alarmist Physics – No Radiative Caveat to the Laws of Thermodynamics

I’m not going to repeat the description of alarmist radiative physics in their simulacral version of the greenhouse effect, because readers should already know by now how that argument goes.  What I will do instead is put that argument in terms of conduction.  (Note that the colour codes below represent increasing temperature in terms of RYGBV.)

The Back-Conductive Warming Effect (BCWE, the physical version of the alarmist Radiative Greenhouse Effect – RGHE):

1) Start with a cold metal rod insulated around its circumference which is then heated at one end.  The end of the rod opposite to that being heated is not insulated.

2) As the heat transfers down the rod, the molecules which now have increased thermal energy can vibrate in any direction.

3) When they randomly vibrate back toward the direction of the heat source, they bump into molecules closer to the heat source which are also warmer due to the temperature gradient established from heat conducting down the rod.

4) When the cooler molecules randomly vibrate towards the warmer end of the rod and bump into the warmer molecules in that direction, they therefore send their energy back towards the hot end of the rod.

5) Because the warmer end of the rod is now not losing as much heat because the cooler end of the rod is warming up and the cooler molecules are now randomly vibrating back towards the warm end of the rod and sending their energy in that direction, the warm end of the rod must then become hotter.

6) The far-end of the rod must have the original temperature of the heat source in order to conserve energy, but the heat source and the rod in contact with it there must now have a higher temperature.

So how does that strike you?  Have you ever put a cold metal block against something only to find that the thing gets hotter?  Of course that doesn’t happen.  Imagine how useful that would be if it did happen?!  Industrialization is all about the practical application of thermodynamics and in getting temperature gradients to do work for you.  This would be useful if either conductive or radiative heat transfer worked this way.  They don’t.  You cannot increase temperature without doing work (heat is equivalent to work)!

The climate alarmists however argue that while this does not occur with conductive heat transfer, it does occur with radiative heat transfer and hence there is a back-radiation greenhouse effect, but no back-conduction warming effect.

The thing is, there is no caveat to the Laws of Thermodynamics such that radiative heat transfer is singled out and explained to not follow the usual behaviour of physical heat transfer.  You do not find any especial statements in thermodynamics about radiative heat transfer that it will behave qualitatively differently than conductive heat transfer.  Do you want to know why that is?  You should understand why that is.

The reason is because both “physical” and “radiative” heat transfer are mediated by the exact same underlying fundamental force of physics: electromagnetism.  In both cases of physical heat transfer and radiative heat transfer, the mediating particle is the photon.

We all should know by now that there is no real such thing as “rubbing up” or “bouncing off” from hard little particles in physical contact as such; rather, there are electromagnetic fields which exchange photons and this exchange of information results in impulse reactions which we call force, and which result in friction, or reactionary motion, or heat flow, etc.  In terms of the fundamental forces of physics, there is no difference in the mechanism of physical heat transfer vs. radiative heat transfer, because it is electromagnetism and the exchange of photons which is exclusively at work.  This is why there is no caveat in the Laws of Thermodynamics that radiative heat transfer may manifest different over-all behaviour as compared to physical heat transfer.

For what it’s worth, the actual end-state of the heat source and metal rod is shown in the next diagram.

The above diagram represents the definition of thermal equilibrium.  The conductive and radiative heat flow equations take on forms like Q = k(Th – Tc), or Q = σ(Th4 – Tc4) respectively.  One can see that they are qualitatively the same, as in heat flows from hot to cold only, and one must also understand that the only way we have to solve these equations to determine the end-state, i.e. thermal equilibrium, is by setting them (Q) equal to zero.

We have never ever encountered a climate alarmist claiming the existence of back-conductive warming.  Why is that?  Why not?  After-all, it would have been totally consistent for them to do so: given that it is the same underlying force of physics, they would have been entirely consistent in claiming back-conduction warming along with back-radiation warming, and the argument for either is exactly the same.  It is so telling that they’ve created this inconsistency here!

Imagine if we cut the rod in half and created a small vacuum gap for only radiative transfer to then mediate heat flow within.  We can start with the rod from the condition as that from the back-conductive scenario figure below point 6, or from the equilibrium condition as just above.  The results for back-conduction being in effect or not being in effect is shown below:

If the alarmist physics was consistent then it would argue for the existence of back-conduction as well, however we have never witnessed them doing so.  But either way, if one splits the rod with it starting from either the back-conductive scenario or the non-back-conductive scenario, the result in either case is that by the simple expedient of cutting the rod in half, one can increase the temperature of half of the rod!  The reason is because of the climate alarmist radiative greenhouse effect operating by radiation in the vacuum gap between the bar-halves.

We don’t so much care here anymore as to whether back-conduction warming exists (it doesn’t), rather the important result in either case is that if we simply cut the rod in half in order to create a vacuum gap for radiation to mediate heat there, then the climate alarmist greenhouse effect should increase the temperature of the bar closest to the original heat source.  Wouldn’t that be an amazing and useful result?  Simply cut a heat conductor in half, create a small vacuum gap between facing ends within the heat conductor, and half of the conductor will become hotter.  Cut something in half, get higher temperature!  And actually, the temperature of the rod closest to the heat source will increase directly as a function of the number of cuts in the rod!

There is simply no internal or external consistency to the “physics” of the alarmist greenhouse effect.  This can be expected because something which doesn’t exist, and which is false, and which is a simulacrum, can have no internal consistency to the logic of that which can exist by the very definition of reason.

And of course, the flat Earth climate alarmist movement is nothing but an attack on reason itself.  It’s meant to be inconsistent, because that’s how the negative dialectic is applied in order to render a mind unconscious and unable to think.

The inconsistency of climate alarm “physics” is its FEATURE, not its problem!

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

92 Responses to Back-Conduction and Alarmist Physics – No Radiative Caveat to the Laws of Thermodynamics

  1. Next up: Back convection. (^_^)

  2. historyscoper says:

    The CO2 greenhouse warming hoax is not about conduction but radiation, but its big con is to try to ignore the role of convection. As solar heat from the surface is slowly radiated into the atmosphere, it either passes it through to space or is absorbed, yes, but that heats up the atmosphere, causing it to rise to space at a slower speed, trading heat for work as it climbs against the gravity field of the atmosphere. By the time it’s gone very high it’s out of heat, so there’s next to nothing to radiate back to the surface in the first place 🙂 Of course the remaining heat is radiated to the infinite heat sink of space and is lost forever. It’s the great mass of the atmosphere that slows convection that is the real reason the surface keeps within livable temperature limits, not any back radiation from a fictitious dragon in the sky.

    http://www.historyscoper.com/climatetlw.html

    If the so-called climate science grads were singers they’d be as talentless as Fabian singing I want to be a hound dog man 🙂 They need to demand a refund and retrain for useful careers.

  3. Pingback: No Radiative Caveat for 'Back-Conduction' and Alarmist Physics | PSI Intl

  4. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Have you tried it on that yellow brick road in Kansas ? Just might work there 🙂

  5. Mark says:

    Hey historyscoper that tickled me, of course it can only be bettered by the classic by Elvis
    Ain’t nothing but a hound dog…

    Also reminds me of one of my favourite albums of all time; this track is something Joe might like lol..
    It’s called the chamber of 32 doors, here it is:

    Great post historyscoper it made me LOL
    Thanks man
    Cheers

  6. Tom - Not That Tom says:

    All of this RGHE guff has cost me personal friendships. One example is with a mechanical engineer grad (~1976/77?). He simply won’t debate the issue as to how something cooler (the troposphere) can heat somewhere warmer (the surface).

    Staggering.

  7. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Tom – Not That Tom… If it’s any consolation… My brother in law is BSc in Chemistry and my best bridge buddy is PhD in organic Chemistry, both from the early 1970’s. Both believe in AGW. I just can’t talk them out of it ! We have to avoid the subject entirely otherwise it becomes like a mine field in Iraq. It’s like politics and religion… A no go zone !

    Have a nice day.

  8. George says:

    Pierre, and everyone else here’
    Check out this website. It is very enlightening:
    http://www.calqlata.com/Maths/Formulas_Atmosphere.html

  9. George says:

    My previous comment went into moderation. It must be because I linked to a website. I understand that may not be allowed. Forgive me.

  10. Herb Rose says:

    Hi Joe,
    I thought of a proof that the GHGT violates the second law of thermodynamics and why the kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the atmosphere above the surface of the Earth are greater than the kinetic energy of the surface of the Earth. Temperature does not give an accurate reading of the kinetic energy of a gas and the definition of it being the mean kinetic energy does not apply to a gas.
    If I boil water I have water and steam at 100 C which would mean the water and steam have the same mean kinetic energy. In order to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam I must add energy (540 calorie/gram). Where does this energy go if it is not contained in the kinetic energy of the gas molecules?
    Have a good day,
    Herb

  11. dogdaisy2 says:

    Joe, why do you try to counter the apparent effects of back-radiation (that it reduces cooling rates and not that it directly heats and raises the temperature of the surface because any semi-literate scientist knows that is not thermodynamically possible) with a discussion on back-conduction. Cannot you counter it by describing exactly how this reduction in cooling rates from the effects of back-radiation contradicts the laws of thermodynamics?

    [JP: Yah you’re arguing that reduced cooling rate equals increasing temperature. You freaks love your sophistry. Cooling down slower does not mean increasing temperature. Your very language is nonsensical and in this much refutes itself as having any meaning or utility.]

    To deliberately mis-interpret what is being explained and replace it with your own, false, interpretation is grossly disingenuous, to say the least.

    [JP: Oh fuck off. Norman, right? When are you losers just going to roll over finally? You guys are so disgusting. You’re so gross. As if you think that projection and blaming others for what you actually do is a good strategy for survival…what pathetic parasites. Well, it’s what you are. What to do with parasites? We stomp them underfoot. That’s what YOU parasites have done…what you just claimed about me. You’re so fucking gross. Yuck! Blech! As if you even write such disgusting psychological projections BS. GROSS!]

    Why did you not try to disprove back radiation using convection as an example? The base of a container containing a liquid is heated, the warmed water rises and cools slightly then falls taking some of its remaining heat energy back to the base.

    [JP: Yah, and when it falls back down to the base, it is cooler, or at most, equal temperature, and hence, HAS NO HEAT to send to the base to warm it further. Moron.]

    The thermal energy is flowing in both directions because the molecules are free to move just as LWIR photons are free to move in either direction in the atmosphere.

    [JP: And just by your very analogy, which is the same as the OP analogy with conduction, the LWIR photons have no heat to send back to the surface.]

    So is conduction the only one of the three methods of thermal energy transfer where energy moves in one direction only (ie no back-conduction)?

    [JP: Idiot, I made it quite clear that the conductive argument is identical to the radiative argument, and you have shown it is also identical to the convective argument. Heat doesn’t move backwards.]

    No, even in solids heat energy transfer occurs in both directions, only the NET energy transfer is from hot to cold.

    [JP: Oh this is so original! Wow, we haven’t seen this argument for the last decade or more! No no, you’re not deliberately misinterpreting HEAT and replacing it with your own false grossly disingenuous sophistry at all, are you!!?? lol

    You freaks are so sick. You’re so gross! What is wrong with you!?

    NET is HEAT. Only the net is the heat, and neither of the two energy sources are heat. Energy may transfer in both direction, but only the greater portion of the energy relative to the smaller portion is the heat. Your invented definition of heat is self-contradictory and contradictory to the equations of heat transfer.]

    The reason this is so hard to visualise is that the atoms are fixed and closely packed so involves short-range transfer only, not from one end of the rod to the other. To prove a similar effect in conduction (ie that thermal energy flows in both directions)

    [JP: Oh that’s so cute and clever how you mean to conflate thermal energy with heat…wow really original!]

    you must consider a two-dimensional plane through the rod and consider atoms on either side adjacent to the plane.

    [JP: Holy F you are retarded. Yah that’s what the one figure above shows…exactly.]

    We know that energy distribution among the atoms in both the hot and cold ends is random, both high and low energy vibrations on both sides existing simultaneously and, ergo, the same must be true of the atoms adjacent to and on opposite sides of the plane. Regions of high vibrational energy on the colder side can then transfer thermal energy to lower energy atoms on the warm side.

    [JP: You are retarded. You’re a disgusting filthy gross parasite. There are more higher frequency atoms on the warmer side than the cooler side, hence the cooler side lacks the frequencies to populate on the warmer side, and rather, the warmer side populates the higher frequencies on the cooler side thus warming the cooler side, and with heat flowing in only one direction.]

    And there you have it thermal energy being transferred from the colder side to the warmer side.

    [JP: You disgusting filthy piece of shit. Yah, because you left out all of the other atoms which contribute and somehow, insanely, thought you could focus only on the atoms you wanted, when thermodynamics is a result of the contribution from everything because it is statistically impossible for nature to focus on only a subset of atoms. And that’s before we even address, again, what you mean by ‘thermal energy’.]

    Is this back-conduction and is it contravening the laws of thermodynamics?

    [JP: Uh yah, when you select only a subset of atoms to produce statistically impossible behaviour, yep that contravenes the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is largely mathematically derived based upon the statistical impossibility of what you just tried to do. Ya sick freak.]

    I’ll let you decide but will you be open-minded and honest in your deliberations or will you put some false interpretation of my words? We shall see.

    [JP: We have seen, and you are a disgusting freak.]

    It is time we put the argument that back-radiation of LWIR from “GHG” (which merely reduces the rate of cooling of the surface) is contravening the laws of thermodynamics, firmly to rest and get on with the important business of refuting all the alarmist hypotheses which are actually based on “pseudo-science”.

    [JP: Oh yah…yah you really had something to contribute here, and oh yah, you really want to get on with refuting alarmism while protecting the basis of alarmism…yah, right. You freaks are so pathetic.]

    Please don’t moderate my post off the website. I need to see that we are so much better at open and honest science than is so appallingly apparent among the alarmists.

    [JP: Yah you really are interesting in honest science and really have an issue with the alarmists…oh, yes.

    You’re so disgusting. You think I can’t see the multiple inversions of logic, redefinition of terms, psychological projection, and emotional pandering?

    You are SO gross! lol!!!!!]

  12. geran says:

    Herb, you seem to be referring to “latent heat”. Latent heat is only evident at phase changes. You can’t measure it with thermometer, otherwise.

  13. Matt in Frisco says:

    Another great article exposing the complete connivery of the leftist construct of globull warming JP.

    All of modern physics refutes their garbage con-job. Unfortunately we’ve cultivated a society of illiterate tools that are more than happy to say “but the experts said” without any other thoughts given. Even when the result is a steady theft of their own existence upto and including their death as required by some of these absolute Malthusian whackos. But don’t worry Alexandria Occasional Cortex has a plan! I’m sure you’ve probably seen some of it by now. It’s absolutely retarded. No more planes- it’s trains that’ll save us!! Rebuild ALL buildings in the US. Gotta be green yo!! It’s hip ya know?!?

  14. Joseph Postma: re: “Can you believe that I have to explain to people with doctorates in physics that flat Earth theory can’t actually be used to do real physics, and that this is an important thing to consider, and think about?” May I recommend that you need to address this question very early in your discussions, as I am over half way through the book and, as I have tried to indicate, I’m not sure of this yet. I succinct discussion with examples at the start of the book would have kept those readers, who opened the book curious about this, fascinated. Instead, they mostly probably give up for lack of this. I’m still looking forward hopefully.

  15. “Alexandria Occasional Cortex” gives her far too much credit.

    “Alexandria Occluded Cortex”, maybe.

    Or just “Alexandria Cortexless”.

    And the Green New Deal, sometimes credited to her, is actually the product of the Sunrise Movement. She is just the House sponsor of a bill that verbalizes it for Congress.

    Here’s a taste of its flaws that I started to scrutinize (I made notes in red):
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/z6stprwilo3hp0w/GreenNewDealANALYSIS.pdf

  16. Matt in Frisco says:

    RK,

    You are probably quite correct. LOL
    Yes the Green Idiot deal is full of absurdities. I looked at it briefly last week and was underwhelmed, we can only hope that people will have enough sense to avoid it and it’s progenitors like the plague. They and it are evil.

    If you want an interesting bit of research go look at her Chief of Staff Chakrabarti. Guy is a NAZI supporter/sympathizer by virtue of his affinity for the former Indian leader Subhas Chandra Bose circa WWII. Hitler ally and mass murderer wannabe. But don’t worry I’m sure it’s just a t-shirt. This was one of the great fallacies of WWII that it was just Hitler and his pals from Europe trying to impose their psychotic wills on the world. The Indians and many other middle eastern leaders joined Hitler. Mostly Muslims, but the Indians were there too.

  17. Christopher Marshall says:

    Sadly anything labeled “Green” is as infallible as global warming to the acolytes. Soon they’ll start reporting family members just to get a bonus on carbon credit. I can see them now, mind dead zombies like on “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” in the streets pointing fingers at an accused screaming, “Not green. Not green!”

    Instead of the Hitler Youth it’s, “The Green Initiative Youth.”

  18. Herb Rose says:

    Geran,
    T(H2O(g)) = T(h20(l)). ke(H2O(g) = 540ke(H2O(l)). The temperature of a gas is not an accurate indicator of the kinetic energy the gas molecules.Once a substance becomes a gas it follows the universal gas law (PV=nkt) where additional energy to an unconfined gas results in greater volume and further inaccuracy for kinetic energy.

  19. geran says:

    Herb, you are addressing me, but I have no clue what your point is.

    If you are claiming that a thermometer can not measure the temperature of a gas, you are wrong. I have a thermometer outside right now that is measuring the temperature of a gas, the air around it.

    You keep trying to invoke the gas law, but PV is NOT temperature. You may be confusing enthalpy with temperature, among other perplexities.

  20. Christopher Marshall says:

    Does anyone know the real half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere? I was just reading the old leaked IPCC emails and someone mentioned they lied about the half life of C02. Since GOOGLE will never give me the answer I thought one of you may know?

  21. Christopher Marshall says:

    So I hear half-life of CO2 is 20 years. If around 20-80% of CO2 gets scrubbed per year, and it’s lifespan is no more than 40 years(?) and the entire amount contributed to man made CO2 is way less than the whole outage of CO2 in the atmosphere how is it this number keeps rising? Co2 should be breaking down and diminishing if you only advocate the man made part. I can’t do that math but if anyone wants to take a crack at it, feel free. Something mathematically isn’t adding up with the “constant increase” in Co2. I smell some fraud in these numbers?

  22. Freeman Dyson has a very low half-life. I’m not sure I remember correctly but I think it’s 12 years.

  23. Joseph Postma: Re: “the answer to existence and the grand unified theory isn’t to be found in the senses and empiricism but in solving, by pure reason…”[Postma, Joseph. In the Cold Light of Day: Flat Earth in Modern Physics and a Numerical Proof for God: A Climate Alarm Story . Kindle Edition.] You missed one of the most important developments in the modern history of science called the Scientific Revolution which was when Francis Bacon taught us this Aristotelian position of yours was holding back science. Science needs both empiricism and pure reason. Also, it’s a major current development (see Unzicker’s books among others) that modern physics has been suffering from a lack empiricism thanks to Einstein and his thought experiments. By the way, your Hockney friend is mistaken about when the Illuminati originated as the history of political science shows us that Adam Weishaupt invented it in the 18th century [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2016/07-08/profile-adam-weishaupt-illuminati-secret-society/].

  24. Joseph Postma: Here’s my Amazon review of your book: “A flat earth has nothing to do with his subject. He actually means that the amount of watts of energy hitting the earth’s surface is twice what the AGW proponents say it is. This is because they use the formula 4 pi r2 giving the area of the earth’s surface when one should use 2 pi r2 because the sun is only hitting half that surface at any time. He never demonstrates that the AGW climate modelers actually make this mistake anywhere else besides newspapers and intro texts and he does not give examples of them making this mistake. He only claims that this invalidates their models.”

    [JP: Actually I source multiple references to the origin of the greenhouse effect of climate alarm, and demonstrate that these derivations require flat Earth in order for their math to work.

    I am sorry that you are such an idiot.]

  25. Macha says:

    It seems to me that a lot of debate is crossing different perspectives. Eg atmophere is a coolant or a warm blanket. Well, sun at TOA 1370W/m2. is about 120C. With 30% reflected, thats about 90C directly at surface. Spread over sunlight hemisphere drops to about 30C. So, yes…since we see about 15C, atmosphere it arguably cools. But how much of that is simply night time. Without any atmosphere, albedo drops to something more Luna, and earth more likely about minus 75C. So, that suggests atmosphere warms by 90C. Perspective matters.

  26. Macha says:

    I read half life c14 was 12 yrs and c12 4 yrs. Will try to find link. Maybe different to actual CO2 but search for muarray SALBY.

  27. @theoryofthesecondsun aka IdiotStick @2019/02/13 at 12:52 pm

    Oh yah, I really missed the Scientific Revolution of empiricism. Yep, never heard of it. Fucking moron. You select a subset of a sentence, not even a whole sentence, and then try to tell me and everyone that, oh my, I’ve missed the enlightenment and the basis of modern science. Oh wow you really caught me there! Wow you really got me on something because you took a subset of a sentence from paragraph. IDIOT!

    @theoryofthesecondsun, I would like to ask you a question, and I hope that you can answer: Why are you such a fuckin idiot? What made you such a god-damned DUMB ASS? What is it that made you so incredibly stupid!? I mean it is difficult to imagine being as stupid as you…it is difficult to even pretend it. You are such an amazing dumb ass it’s really quite incredible.

    Here’s the paragraph from the sentence from the subset which you tried to conflate with some idiocy:

    “The conclusion from the above point forward is that the grand unified theory of physics, or i.e. of all existence, is ultimately a mathematical structure. The question then becomes purely mathematical, as in the goal for a grand unified theory becomes a question of what exact mathematical structure existence should be, and why that structure and not others, and how that structure could give rise to sensory perception and the phenomena found in the sensory world, etc. The focus turns from the perceptible empirical domain to the noumenal mental domain but now with a rational basis, i.e. mathematics, and Plato’s forms are actually numbers and their relations via equations. This moves away from the empiricism of the cave of our fleshly senses and towards the idealism of pure reason: the answer to existence and the grand unified theory isn’t to be found in the senses and empiricism but in solving, by pure reason and logic, what must be the underlying form of a pure reason of mathematics which logically produces the empirical realm.”

    Aw that doesn’t actually lead to your conclusion now does it… IDIOT.

  28. Laurence Clark Crossen says:

    Anyone reading your book can see that my criticisms are correct. I have given you friendly and constructive criticism as I am also an AGW skeptic who appreciates that you may be starting to develop a new and better foundation for climate modeling. To mischaracterize your opponents as having an idea like the flat earth when they actually have the surface area of the whole earth when they should have that of half of the earth only detracts from your criticism. You have really missed the main point of Francis Bacon and the scientific revolution.

  29. Oh HI Laurence, some long not-used user name you got allowed through moderation at some point, so that you could have the opportunity to say something retarded again?

    God you people are such disgusting idiots.

    Your selective sub-sentence quote was RETARDED. It was stupidAF. Yah, I’m not aware of “Francis Bacon and the scientific revolution”.

    You are such an amazing idiot. You are so gross. You’re like….icky gross, like, yucky, slimy kinda gross, like bugs in puss kinda gross.

    God you’re sick. HAHA

  30. “I am also an AGW skeptic who appreciates that you may be starting to develop a new and better foundation for climate modeling”

    Oh yes, but you really want to keep the sole basis of climate alarmism and the climate modeling from which it comes…

    You stupid sick freak.

    You just gotta keep trying to corral the argument away from where you don’t want it to go…you just can’t stop, because you sick freaks just can’t be exposed.

    Well, you’re exposed, and you’re retardedAF flat Earthers….lulz!!

  31. Hey @theoryofthesecondsun @Laurence Clark Crossen – what’s it like to be so disgusting, such a pathetic non-entity, such a sad, faceless, nameless, demented troll, that you use multiple user names and multiple accounts and pretend to be different people just so that you can say stupidAF idiocy that anyone with knowledge of physics, philosophy, scientific and philosophical history, etc., can see through instantly? Please answer the question: What is it like to be so stupid? Like, what life forces or live events fed into creating such an idiot and moron as yourself? Can you identify the main influences? Because man, you’re really retarded!

  32. Laurence Crossen says:

    I’m sorry.

  33. Christopher Marshall says:

    OK so now they are claiming ALL new CO2 is from industry and that’s the C12? Can anyone explain where this came from? That’s quite an “out there” statement from the warmists.

  34. Christopher Marshall says:

    Joe,
    Maybe if you want, you can explain this C12 C14 they are coming up with now for those who aren’t quite up to speed on this. (Me at least.) My gut keeps telling me the math does not add up with the numbers they keep projecting with C02. My gut is hardly wrong, it tells me often I love pizza. It also contradicts the NASA satellite data showing greater concentrations of CO2 over tropical jungles not urban industry.

  35. “A flat earth has nothing to do with his subject. He actually means that the amount of watts of energy hitting the earth’s surface is twice what the AGW proponents say it is.”

    As I see it, the incident disc for the Earth hemisphere receiving solar input is flat, and this is fine for determining the HEMISPHERE input. Taking that flat disc, however, and applying it to the entire globe as an input essentially keeps the disc flat AND doubles its size for a spherical Earth. That’s what the math means.

    Another way that the math has meaning is to consider the flat disc remaining the same size, no longer applying correctly to the hemisphere, but now applying to the WHOLE flat Earth twice as far away. Either way, the math could only apply to a flat Earth.

  36. As for empiricism vs pure reason, I’m thinking that there really is no dichotomy, but rather a continuum of the same sentience.

    What the heck do I mean by that?!

    Well, I suggest that logic and pure reason are higher forms of the senses, thus, components of the best approach to empiricism.

    What I would call the tactile senses can only go so far. After this, higher reasoning takes over and extends these, BUT [and this is my belief] such higher reason should NOT deny its relationships to the tactile senses, ala Copenhagen Interpretation.

  37. Pierre says:

    Can I post a simple picture (graph) and if so how ?

  38. Christopher Marshall says:

    Robert K I don’t know if your artistic skills would be motivated (mine suck my brother got all the artistic skills) but I had a funny thought maybe it will inspire you one day.

    I keep seeing a scene where two guys are in an ice age huddled in a sprawling ancient building huddled around a wisp of a fire surrounded by ice walls.
    “I am freezing. Wish we had a way to stay warmer.” One says.
    “Yeah, no kidd’n. I can’t feel my feet.”

    In the next scene in shows a broader picture that the building use to be a coal burning plant with an old sing saying something like “Closed because of global warming.” Or something like that.

  39. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    What is the problem with those warmists. It seems clear to me…

    Unless Vukcevic fudged the data like NASA did !

  40. Rosco says:

    The problem with their “model” is they take the radiation incident over a disk, reduce it by the factor of 4 to determine the radiative output “required” (over a sphere) to balance the input (over the disk) and then they call THAT the radiative INPUT – spread all over the Earth all the time ? This is so stupid I cannot believe people with any intelligence don’t spend a considerable portion of their day rolling on the floor laughing.

    That people believe such gobbledygook is astounding ! That people accept nonsense like – without greenhouse gases Earth’s average temperature (black body) would be minus 18°C – and yet NASA state that without any atmosphere at all the Moon’s average temperature (black body) is 16.4°C hotter at a toasty minus 2.75°C.

    Where is the logic in any of this gobbledygook ?

    Anyone else noticed the Washington University have taken down their “Greenhouse Effect” Page – wonder why ? Maybe they’re sick of being lampooned ?

  41. Rosco says:

    dogdaisy2 expended a lot of energy trying to justify that “back radiation” reduces the cooling rate of the surface.

    What we know about the equations of radiation exchange shows that nothing prevents a blackbody (read cavity) from emitting power equivalent to sigma x T^4.

    dogdaisy2’s interpretation the must originate from the “Net” equation form of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation – P(net) = sigma( Tobj^4 – Tback^4).

    While P(net) is reduced in this equation there is an explicit statement the the object emits sigmaTobj^4.

    If, as many claim, the Object must heat up under these circumstances they are explicitly claiming that heat is transferring from cold to hot but they just don’t understand this obvious requirement.

    And Macha is completely incorrect when he states “Well, sun at TOA 1370W/m2. is about 120C.”

    At the top of the atmosphere the solar radiation is ~1361 W/m2 on average but it is NOT equivalent to a temperature of ~120°C.

    It is equivalent to the emission of an object with an effective temperature of 5,772 Kelvin with the emissive power of 62..94 x 10^6 W/m2 attenuated to ~1361 W/m2 by the inverse square law applied over the distance of Earth from the Sun.

    The spectral plots prove these 2 are nothing alike.

    And the stupid model of the “greenhouse effect” explicitly states the “alleged” back radiation from the atmosphere has equal heating power to the solar radiation. All of their algebra makes this stupid assertion – even so-called sceptics make this absurd claim because they obviously have little or no knowledge of spectral considerations .

    Any “educated” person who’d believe that is simply too stupid to exist.

    The solar radiation could induce temperatures approaching the emission temperature if we had the technology to focus it.

    The atmospheric “back radiation” could never induce anything other than the temperature of the emitting gases which we are always told is minus 18°C.

    Climate “science” is absurd beyond belief and is easily debunked !

  42. Christopher Marshall says:

    I have to ask are there ANY universities left that teach honest science? Physics, thermal dynamics, Climate or Chemistry? Or have they all gone down under the political climate juggernaut?

  43. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    For 1000’s of years people have tried to invent a perpetual motion machine. It never worked and never will because it is like getting energy for free (creating energy out of nothing). It goes against all the laws of thermodynamics. Since no one has ever succeded, after all that time, I think it proves that the laws of thermodynamics are on a sound footing and that a perpetual motion machine will never see the light of day. But, those idiots just had to try it one more time, and they have PhD’s !!!

    Why did they not just say it up front… Here’s our new perpetual motion machine ?

  44. minus 2.75°C.

    Man, that’s hot !

    Can we now discuss back magnetism ? — the negative pole of a magnet keeps the positive pole of the magnet more positive than it would otherwise be.

  45. Christopher Marshall says:

    So I guess the word is out and I have a target on my back from the YouTube alarmist patrol (I feel honored). I am being hit with all kinds of academics and scientists. Arrogant beyond belief and as dishonest. Si I was stating the corruption of the IPCC peer review process to someone else. This guy, “Nick Danger” jumps into my conversation and says:

    “I am a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a professional scientific organization founded in 1848 . They are the publishers of Science and other well-respected journals. They have no trouble accepting climate science as a science. There is no controversy among our 120,000 members who are primarily chemists, physicists, biologists, geologists, etc. The climate papers are written and reviewed to the same standards as the papers in physics, biology, electronics, and genetics which appear immediately adjacent to them. So if you think, “A Transforming Metal Nanocomposite with Large Elastic Strain, Low Modulus, and High Strength” and “Aire-Dependent Thymic Development of Tumor-Associated Regulatory T Cells” are real science, then you must accept that “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years” (Marcott 2013) is as well since it was published just a few pages away in the 6124th issue of Science. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124 The fact that you are seemingly unaware of this reveals either that you know little of actual science, or you are being deceptive in your implied claim that climate science isn’t real science. Which is it?”

    So I replied,
    “I’ll make it simple so you can understand. If any claim breaks the laws of science is it still considered science? Or does it take some greasing of the wheels? The fundamental theory behind man made global warming breaks the laws of thermal dynamics so HOW did it pass the brilliant minds of all of those glorified scientists? I would LOVE to know? Please explain that to me and all the “honest” scientists who can see this for the fraud it is and somehow your collective minds can’t? As for the IPCC here allow me to explain using their own words:”

    I then gave him many email quotes about the peer review process from IPCC employees. He chose not to respond. However, another Academic took his place that I am currently sparring with.

    I think he’s about ready to cuss me out tell me I’m ignorant and unlearned and say I’m not worth his time. That’s when I get a warm fuzzy felling in my heart, defeating dishonest, disgusting trolls is a good feeling. That’s why the fight Joe and crew is giving them is making them literally go insane. NOTHING I do would be possible without you guys teaching me and I honestly, really appreciate it. I hate bullies and these alarmists are despicable bullies.

  46. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Well… Fudging data isn’t real science either. The idiots forgot to fudge this one…

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0177435a93d5970d-pi

    Better take a picture right now before it disapeares like many others like it !

  47. FROM: A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

    NOTE: Variations within 0.8 degree C. within 1500 years are being portrayed as … “unprecedented”.

    LESS THAN ONE DEGREE !! = “UNPRECEDENTED” ! [Yes, all caps and multiple exclamation points are absolutely required]

    Modern-day thermometers can barely note temps within 1 degree accuracy, and paleo-reconstructions are going to claim less-than-one-degree backcasts AND “unprecedented”!

  48. Did you read the part of my book where the peer-reviewers didn’t understand what was wrong with flat earth theory!!!??? Lol. These guys are such clowns.

  49. Noise requires no explanation. These are nominal variations hence no explanation is required OR possible.

  50. Assuming that “global temperature” (as conceived today) is valid, LESS THAN ONE DEGREE variation, figured for the WHOLE EARTH, over thousands of years, seems remarkably stable.

    How is this not stable ?

    The human response to visual stimuli continues to be exploited in those graphs with the exaggerated y axis that makes small increments look like huge increments.

  51. And great work too CM!

  52. “The climate papers are written and reviewed to the same standards as the papers in physics, biology, electronics, and genetics which appear immediately adjacent to them.”

    A bold claim, considering …

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/PeerReview.pdf

  53. Christopher Marshall says:

    After a long tedious back and forth looks like the second academic vacated the conversation. Wonder if they’ll send a third?
    His final reply:
    “4Real Science again, you refuse to read what I write and you wrongly interpret. Waste of time. There is a huge world out there you have no clue about.”

    My response.
    “My brother travels that world been to places you wouldn’t even dream of entering. So please don’t tell me about the world. I could tell you stories that would give you nightmares for the rest of your life and those are only the ones I could tell. Many stories my brother could never share. You want to know the real world? I can unveil it for you in a vision of nightmares…but I won’t I’ll let you live in the smug academia world and your precious bubble that people like my brother fight hard for you to have, that arrogant delusional privileged bubble.”

    Again no response.

  54. Joseph E Postma says:

    Peer review is the greatest scam going. I talked it it in my book too, after exposing how my own peer-reviewers expressed bewilderment about my stating that flat Earth physics couldn’t be valid physics:

    “If this is what you get from peer-review, then who in the hell needs peer review?! What god-damned comedy is this, are we dealing with here? Here is your scientific standard for merit and truth people…read it, and read it well. Here is the foundation of modern science, here lies the foundation of the modern intellectual and academic world. And now look over here, at the ashes. Do other idiots agree with you? That’s the standard. If the peer-idiot-group doesn’t understand the difference between flat Earth physics and reality, then so much the worse for reality, long live the idiot consensus. You may have heard about actual respectable academics doing experiments over the last few decades where they purposefully submit gibberish for publication in major journals just to see if they can do it, and lo-and-behold the journals publish totally fake, junk, made-up “science” after a full peer-review and editorial examination. Academics do not like to talk about these results because it exposes the gaping hole and flaw and ineffectiveness of the vaunted modern academic peer-review system: the whole system is basically totally useless, totally insecure, totally corruptible, totally hackable, and totally exploitable. The entire system is predicated upon the good-nature of humanity – the good nature of human honesty, the good nature of human intelligence, the good nature of human emotion, the good nature of human competition, the good nature of human cooperation, the good nature of human decency, and the good nature of human virtue. In other words, there is no less secure system in the universe. You can publish either accidental or purposeful gibberish in this system, including in the hard sciences, and then conversely you can not publish a paper stating and explaining that flat Earth physics with paradoxes and nonsensical physical claims cannot possibly be meaningful in physics.”

  55. That seems typical, CM:

    They tell you either that you do not understand, that you have not read what they wrote, or that you have some other basic generalized failure, when they are no longer willing to discuss nuances of their fantasies.

  56. Christopher Marshall says:

    I have a question for Joe (or someone). Someone is trashing Tim Ball he says, ” in court he admitted he was a geographer, not a climatologist, and that he exaggerated his length of tenure as professor from 8 to 28 years. He’s also a creationist, and therefore has zero interest in evidence based science.”

    I don’t know much about Dr. Tim Ball anyone? The creationist has nothing to do with anything. Funny I never hear them trashing Muslims in science.

  57. Christopher Marshall says:

    Does anyone here know who Dr. Tim Ball is? Someone is trashing him and I honestly don’t know much about him. This is what they said:

    “in court he admitted he was a geographer, not a climatologist, and that he exaggerated his length of tenure as professor from 8 to 28 years. He’s also a creationist, and therefore has zero interest in evidence based science.”

    His religious beliefs is nobody’s business. What about the rest?

  58. Christopher Marshall says:

    Yeah these guys are just nuts.

  59. Christopher Marshall says:

    Does anyone know who Dr. Timothy Ball is? Someone was trashing him and I know little about him? Anyone? This what the troll said about him:

    “in court he admitted he was a geographer, not a climatologist, and that he exaggerated his length of tenure as professor from 8 to 28 years.”

  60. CM,
    I’m still focusing on that long quote you posted from the AAAS member, where he wrote:

    <b<“So if you think, “A Transforming Metal Nanocomposite with Large Elastic Strain, Low Modulus, and High Strength” and “Aire-Dependent Thymic Development of Tumor-Associated Regulatory T Cells” are real science, then you must accept that “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years” (Marcott 2013) is as well since it was published just a few pages away in the 6124th issue of Science.”

    So, I took a very brief look at the three articles he mentioned, and here’s what I noticed:

    ABSTRACT from the FIRST article:

    “Freestanding nanowires have ultrahigh elastic strain limits (4 to 7%) and yield strengths, but exploiting their intrinsic mechanical properties in bulk composites has proven to be difficult. We exploited the intrinsic mechanical properties of nanowires in a phase-transforming matrix based on the concept of elastic and transformation strain matching. By engineering the microstructure and residual stress to couple the true elasticity of Nb nanowires with the pseudoelasticity of a NiTi shape-memory alloy, we developed an in situ composite that possesses a large quasi-linear elastic strain of over 6%, a low Young’s modulus of ~28 gigapascals, and a high yield strength of ~1.65 gigapascals. Our elastic strain-matching approach allows the exceptional mechanical properties of nanowires to be exploited in bulk materials.”

    Notice how the article speaks in terms of real-world, measureable data for real-world mechanical systems.

    ABSTRACT from the SECOND article:

    ” Despite considerable interest in the modulation of tumor-associated Foxp3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) for therapeutic benefit, little is known about the developmental origins of these cells and the nature of the antigens that they recognize. Here, we identified an endogenous population of antigen-specific Tregs (termed “MJ23” Tregs) found recurrently enriched in the tumors of mice with oncogene-driven prostate cancer. MJ23 Tregs were not reactive to a tumor-specific antigen, but instead recognized a prostate-associated antigen that was present in tumor-free mice. MJ23 Tregs underwent Aire-dependent thymic development in both male and female mice. Thus Aire-mediated expression of peripheral tissue antigens drives the thymic development of a subset of organ-specific Tregs, which are likely co-opted by tumors developing within the associated organ.”

    Again, notice how references are to real-world, measurable data, and real-world organisms, observable in a lab.

    Finally the ABSTRACT from the climate-reconstruction article:

    “Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

    Notice the word, “suggests” in the first sentence, which indicates lack of the same standard of real-world data as the other two articles. Notice also the final two sentences, where climate computer-model projections are put forth as a substitute for real-world data.

    Clearly, the standards for data and conclusions are different for the first two articles and the climate article. The fact that the climate article appears in this journal beside the other two articles is an indication of the very problem pointed out — namely, that peer-review has gotten slack, and climate science has gained footing on grounds other than quality peer review.

  61. Joseph E Postma says:

    Great sleuthing Robert!

  62. Christopher Marshall says:

    Any thought about Arrhenius and why they keep claiming he Is the father of global warming? I read the paper by Darko Butino that explains he never mentioned the greenhouse effect and that was actually created in the Gore era. Anything else of note on the subject?

  63. Joseph E Postma says:

    Arrhenius discovered that a cold gas could be warmed by radiant heating from a hot source.

    That’s how stupid these people are.(!) That’s not the RGHE.

  64. The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The [alarmist] would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday’s defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more–the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them.

  65. Christopher Marshall says:

    RK Great work indeed on that AAAS member. So I guess no proof is needed if you grease the wheels or meet an agenda requirement? If I only knew that in grade school. I could have made the stupidest science project, get it published first in a scientific journal, and when my teacher gave me a poor grade I could have just said. “But it was peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal. You have to give me a passing grade on it now!”

  66. Christopher Marshall says:

    Joseph, you are so right. I did test runs on You Tube with several user names to gather info on how this tactic was done before I went with my final user name. I gathered info on my enemy and found out a lot of these guys are being paid to troll for global warming. That admitted it!

    That is exactly how it is with these guys and it makes sense, as if they have had seminars or online courses in doing this. You never win the best you can do is get them to leave and they will never ever admit defeat. They always have the advantage because a liar can change the story on a dime he doesn’t depend on facts to prove his point. You are constantly having to debunk one lie after another and then they say, “you just misunderstood. You’re not understanding the science.” it really seems like they have a program because they can counter anything with “info dumps” as if out of nowhere. That’s George Soros and friends money right there.

    That’s why I chose an incognito user name and no source information. They have no idea who I am or what my background is and it drives them nuts because it takes away one of the three weapons they use, I call them the three D tactic: Deny. Discredit. Deflect. Repeat as needed.

    They can’t discredit me so I take that from them. Any source you give to prove a point they will discredit. The only weapon I know is to be on the offensive and call them out on each lie and control the narrative of the conversation. Sometimes I “lead” them for a while just let them ramble on and I just say enough to keep the conversation going for a while without showing any evidence to back up my claim. This tactic I use for the ones I know just want to fight. Once they have given up saying you have no proof or you’re a fraud and whatever and are done with the conversation then I hit them with an overload of info and that usually ends the debate. I do it for the readers and not for the debater.

    I have learned several tactics but knowledge is important. Sometimes you are better off ending the conversation on a win. I’m sure others can add points to this. One thing for sure you have to have a thick skin, you have to be bullet proof and ignore the emotional bait and see the tactics behind it. My advice? Pretend your reading someone else’s responses with no emotion attached. Analyze the data logically and process patterns in the attacker’s words, tactics, baiting and whatever.

    Sometimes I just experiment with them, poke them like a lab rat to see the reaction. ALWAYS be in control even if they don’t know you are.

  67. Christopher Marshall says:

    This is the advice I gave someone it is a nutshell version of what I just said but for the average Joe not the above average Joseph.

    “They aren’t smart they just “pretend” to be smarter. Once you hit them with a real science fact they can do one of 3 things: Call you names and divert from the point. Pretend you don’t understand science and misunderstand the point you just made. Or they just flat out make crap up enough that they think someone will just give up because they don’t know enough to counter act the fake science. The key to remember is always control your conversation don’t let them pull the tether and of course learn and learn how to articulate what you just learned. Sometimes it’s best to not respond if you can’t answer. Trust me if you start to win the debate they will leave. At some point you need to know when the debate is over as well and If you won leave and don’t give more feedback. These guys can’t win by the science so they depend on deflection, denial or discredit anything given them. They really are very small stupid people who pretend to be very strong intelligent people. Remeber that.”

  68. Christopher Marshall says:

    This is a nutshell version of what I just said but for an average commenter:

    “They aren’t smart they just “pretend” to be smarter. Once you hit them with a real science fact they can do one of 3 things: Call you names and divert from the point. Pretend you don’t understand science and misunderstand the point you just made. Or they just flat out make crap up enough that they think someone will just give up because they don’t know enough to counter act the fake science. The key to remember is always control your conversation don’t let them pull the tether and of course learn and learn how to articulate what you just learned. Sometimes it’s best to not respond if you can’t answer. Trust me if you start to win the debate they will leave. At some point you need to know when the debate is over as well and If you won leave and don’t give more feedback. These guys can’t win by the science so they depend on deflection, denial or discredit anything given them. They really are very small stupid people who pretend to be very strong intelligent people. Remeber that.”

  69. Christopher Marshall says:

    Sorry it didn’t show up and then I did it again and the first one showed up as well. Delete one please save the best version. (If you don’t mind you can delete this too.) Sorry for the pain.

  70. Christopher Marshall says:

    This is my analysis of global warming advocates feel free to use it if you wish. Joe you are more than welcome to add or edit as you please.

    The three versions of global warming advocates:

    1.) They have been so indoctrinated they cannot execute critical thinking and never presume for a second they are wrong. Indeed, will never admit they are wrong and no amount of proof will ever change that. Such a branch becomes the “believers” the radical Jihad of the religious global warming sect and they are the active radicals attacking blasphemer deniers anywhere they show up. These are the ones who hate oil, the “believers” that CO2 is going to destroy the planet. Nothing will ever change their minds absolutely never ever. In the middle of a Glacial Ice Age they would be screaming, “It’s because of global warming.” These people are not worth your time.

    2a.) They know it’s a farce and go along with it because it’s easier than fighting the propaganda machine. These are also the individuals who would turn coat if the public opinion would ever sway against global warming. They are moral cowards and as such could never be trusted or depended on.

    2b,) Then again, they may be part of that propaganda machine and actively pursue to silence anyone who opposes the main objective: Destroying capitalism for a global socialist construct. Many in the 2a bracket transit to the 2b bracket easily, being that they are easily morally compromised.

    3.) Then you have the third option. Someone who believes in global warming because it sounds good and seems reasonable but never gave it much thought. This person, unlike the other two, when presented with alternate facts can form a base and informed opinion whether they accept, deny or are on the fence about global warming. In my opinion, these seem to be the only ones you can reason with and perhaps sway to the science side of facts.

  71. Joseph E Postma says:

    Wow Christopher, great sleuthing for you too!! Good work!

    “They always have the advantage because a liar can change the story on a dime he doesn’t depend on facts to prove his point.”

    That’s exactly how sophistry works, exactly its advantage. It always can make up any BS it wants.

    “They can’t discredit me so I take that from them.”

    Good point. I note that these guys almost NEVER use real names. But the honest person uses their real name, in which case they just try to discredit you. Well, THEY believe in flat Earth physics. We just need to put that in their faces.

    Robert, could you take that disk-Earth picture you have, and insert their flat-Earth math/physics diagram inside it to help make the point?

    “I do it for the readers and not for the debater.”

    Same here. I don’t often go into comment sections any more, but when I do it is for that reason, and to play with the idiotic trolls.

    Great comment!

  72. Joseph E Postma says:

    “These guys can’t win by the science so they depend on deflection, denial or discredit anything given them. They really are very small stupid people who pretend to be very strong intelligent people. Remeber that.”

    Exactly!

  73. Joseph E Postma says:

    “This is my analysis of global warming advocates ”

    I’ll give you mine:

    1) Stupid, emotionally vulnerable, emotionally overwhelmed people. This category includes your typical scientist, including those in the hard sciences, who still believe in climate alarmism. This captures a great swath of people. You have your Occasional-Cortexes, and leftists, who really are just dumb as a bag of rocks, but who are emotionally overwhelmed with the need to feel like their are helping other people with other people’s money and effort. It is a really strange thing this leftism…the emotional desire to virtue signal that you are helping people by forcing other people to help the ones you want to help. And of course along the way, to help yourself. I think what’s actually happening is that it is all just a sociopathic scam to game other people into making you their leader…like religion and religious guru’s, etc. There is more than enough evidence now to show that these people are actually firstly interested in helping themselves, and the pretense of helping others is just a convenient cover story.

    And then you also have your scientists, who yes are also emotionally overwhelmed, and in any case have been infected with the cognitive-dissonance mental virus which requires them to believe in impossible things in order to be “part of the group” and to have their identity, their persona or ego, as a “scientist”. For these people it is much more like religion. For the non-scientist leftists, they want to be in charge of the religion and have the power to reward and to punish…but for the scientist, these are the followers and they simply cannot fathom that their religion could be wrong. They have absolute faith in their leaders EVEN IF the leaders have ZERO scientific qualifications. I have practising PhD’s tell me that it is “impossible for the global scientific machine to make mistakes.” Seriously, that’s what they think. That’s what they think after I show them to their face a diagram which depicts the Earth as a flat surface, with sunshine spread evenly over that surface, with its physically meaningless numbers, etc. Thus, even core-scientists are included in the emotionally overwhelmed. But as I said, for them it is about the sanctity of their religion, whereas for the non-scientist leftist it is about their dream of being in control…ANY control, no matter the basis, just as religious leaders.

    So that explains why dumb-as-rocks leftist leaders and ostensibly “smart” scientists have happened to make their alliance.

    Well, I guess that captures everyone. I suppose it could be broken down into 2 categories though.

  74. I’m not sure if Tim Ball is a creationist, or in what manner.

    All they can do is try to discredit. Same old tactic. Tim Ball is well known in the skeptic rationalist community. You can find great vids of him ion YouTube, etc., giving talks. He wrote the foreword for my book.

  75. “Robert, could you take that disk-Earth picture you have, and insert their flat-Earth math/physics diagram inside it to help make the point?”

  76. Joseph E Postma says:

    Great!!!

    We simply need to put that in their face. Make them own it. Over and over again. This image can be the standard reference everyone goes to to debunk them from hereon. How’s that sound Robert? Want to add a reference, your name, etc.? This image or one like it must become the standard reference viraly-known to debunk climate alarmism. It captures everything!

  77. I’ve been looking over Gerlich & Tscheuschner’s long paper from years ago, again. I read the whole thing back then, and I read all the criticisms of it, plus G&T’s detailed responses to the criticisms. I wrote a short article on all this, where I indicated that I never accepted that they were ever debunked.

    I saw the very things you discuss above — in this case, people telling experienced mathematical physicists that they did not understand the basics and that they were making fundamental mistakes, which, even then, I laughed off.

    Since you mentioned diagrams, I think it is instructive to note what this duo said of radiation-balance diagrams:

    “… a radiation intensity is not a current density that can be described by a vector field. That means that conservation laws (continuity equations, balance equations, budget equations) cannot be written down for intensities. Hence the popular climatologic radiation balance diagrams describing quasi-one-dimensional situations are scientific misconduct since they do not properly represent the mathematical and physical fundamentals.”

    And so it seems appropriate to post this companion image again:

    No credits required, but if you want, then credit me, with my real name, … unlike the cowards hiding behind fake names (ala, Eli Rabbet/Josh Halpern/ or whatever his name is on a given day)

  78. No disrespect to Nikolov and Zeller, who had to try to foil blacklisting tactics by using different names [i.e., survival vs. cowardice]

  79. Christopher Marshall says:

    Yeah my user name is 4 Real Science so I can be an invisible conduit to smarter people. I take no credit because I don’t exist. Sometimes I quote in general but they know it’s not from me but it drives them crazy that they can’t discredit me because I simply don’t exist. I always say I represent people smarter than I am. You guys could use my user name in and out and it wouldn’t matter because it’s just a proxy exactly how I want it. I don’t know anything and I don’t want credit for anything. I want people to see the science and they have to because they can’t discredit the source. Plus I love mocking trolls. They are hateful vile creatures and deserve what they get. Since I can take it that leaves someone else free of being bothered that might not know how to defend themselves. Maybe by reading my stuff they could learn, who knows? Plus if they quote me it doesn’t matter because I am just a proxy. Honestly I wish someone else would take control once in a while. That would really blow their mind! LOL. Or if like a dozen 4 real science users showed up.That would really trip them out. Wonder how they would like to get swarmed like they do others?

  80. CM,

    I guess I’m living on the edge, … risking a Wikipedia article about me that millions will use to discredit all that I write.

    Kernodle, a former dance-and-fitness instructor, turned self-taught visual artist, who flirted with science and math (i.e, pissed his life away, by professional standards), often spoke his mind on such subjects as climate change and quantum theory, with no degrees in these areas to his name. He died alone, broke, and homeless in the same town where he was born.

    Future zealots will relish the opportunity to post my Wiki bio. (^__^)

  81. Christopher Marshall says:

    Yeah well I’m protective of my tater tot recipe.I better not find it on the web.

  82. Well, the alarmists will warn you that taters will have less nutritional value with greater yield, due to CO2 greening, and so your tater tots would not pass their quality inspection. They would quickly inform you of this while sitting in their comfy heated environs (thanks to CO2-polluting fossil fuels), while sipping their gourmet coffee (planted, processed, packaged,distributed, and sold, thanks to CO2-polluting fossil fuels, typing on their state-of-the-art computer (thanks to fossil fuels), moments before they dash off to the grocery store in their hybrid SUVs, to buy some health food with their plastic credit cards (thanks to CO2-pol …. it grows tiring).

  83. Joseph E Postma says:

    Chime in whoever wants to ridicule the trolls…

  84. I’ve stopped feeding trolls what they like — they are like feral cats — once you start, they don’t go away. Sometimes you just have to walk away.

    …even as cute as they are.

  85. Joseph E Postma says:

    Robert…to that figure I asked you for which you then produced…could you add a little/noticeable caption somewhere that just says “The Climate Alarmist Greenhouse Effect” or some such?

    Or: “The Derivation of the Climate Alarmist Greenhouse Effect”

    I really appreciate it!

  86. Christopher Marshall says:

    So I attempted to calculate the math of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by man. Will someone please check my math and make sure I’m right?

    -CO2 contributed from mankind (12&13C respectively) is only 18.77 ppm of 420 ppm.
    1ppm=2.13gt (Can anyone confirm that?)
    Mankind is accused of dumping 40 gt a year and that adds up to 18.77 ppm or =4.7% respectively.

    I pretty much figured this out in my head (and a calculator) so no math work to show. So have at it.

  87. Christopher Marshall says:

    My math was off some. 1 ppm is 2.13gt. Fossil fuels is said to burn 30-40 gts a year. So that is around 4.7% of total CO2 emissions.

  88. Christopher Marshall says:

    So Climate Clowns are trying to tell everyone physicists don’t understand the Laws of Thermodynamics. It is clear this author doesn’t understand. When stupid people try and be smart, this is what it looks like:
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s