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.

39 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.

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