Categories
-
Join 496 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- Philip Mulholland on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
Climate of Sophistry 
Michael Mann will not pay a cent – the court victory is in Canada and has no effect in the US.
Dr Tim Ball – Historical Climatologist
Books:
“The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”
“Human Caused Global Warming”
“The Biggest Deception in History”
https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/
BREAKING – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to pay
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/
Interesting – I appear to have time traveled to make my comment about songhees’ comment before it was made ?
It does this randomly. Strange. I know what it is. Something needed to be reset today. Mandela.
I am amazed how many “physicists” I encounter on YTube and yet they are the ones who refuse to debate me. A true physicist would befuddle me with math sorcery and word voodoo, I wonder about these fellows. Either they are frauds or climate science has a very low bar, the more incoherent ramblings you can produce the higher the degree they give you.
How do you think I feel, working in academia, having PhD’s in physics get mad at me for pointing out that flat Earth theory can’t be valid maths? Emperor has no clothes and they refuse to see it!
You should have a PhD and more degrees than a black belt. Honestly this is getting to the point of insanity.
These people are convinced 15 micron IR is warming the planet. A CO2 molecule for gads sake, a million photons wouldn’t do anything to the surface and they think a 1 in a thousand photon emitted back tot he Earth is? How many photons would it take to change surface temperature 0.01C?
This ridiculous “radiative forcing” is the fail safe answer if you question it further. These kids re leaving college with no credible science education.
You should try reaching out to Willie Soon although I don’t know what his stance is on the GHE. What about Heller? Someone out there has got to bite on sanity somewhere. Then again anyone who tries gets discredited and destroyed.
Joseph,
This guy was fired for writing a book against climate change in 2015. He was a local weatherman in France.
I dare them to fire me for writing a book which says that I disagree with flat Earth mathematics.
CDM
I thaught about your catch & release question. How long does CO2 retain the energy it gets from the ground. Light a candle. Wax is just about 100% Carbon and Hydrogen. When you light the wick the wax burns and the electrons get shoved up to a higher energy level orbit. When they come back down to their basic level they emit light. Red and blue. When do you see the light coming from the burning wax ? Instantly or a week later ? Released instantaneously.
Thanks Joe: https://principia-scientific.org/watch-climate-change-trans-counselling-by-will-franken-on-youtube/
I’m trying to study some physics (as if I’m not confused enough) but this “relaxation time” does that apply to the IR catch and release of CO2 as well. Does any thermal equilibrium need to be accomplished before the IR is released and if it is re-emitting a duplicate photon is that instantaneous therefore no relaxation time or thermal equilibrium established?
I am studying “Daniel V. Schroeder: An Introduction to Thermal Physics” but any other suggestions is really appreciated. I don’t feel I’ve learned much in 10 months but I desire to at least follow the conversation and the math which naturally, is a huge part of the conversation.
Yes I ask a lot of questions becasue I’ve always wanted to know why not just accept why not which allotted myself a great number of demerits in high school.
Apparently most teachers never want to be questioned ever. From Joseph’s testimonies that holds true in all fields of Academia.
Am I going insane? Did I miss something in this?
This guy says, ” I have a degree in physics, so I don’t need to be lectured about it by some internet yahoo.” Referring to yours truly beloved by all alarmist trolls.
I say, “Simple physics is {CO2}Unless it is re-emitting a single duplicate photon it is re-radiating in all directions therefore the same energy is dispersed in all directions at lesser frequencies. Absorbing energy in one direction (surface) and re-radiating it in all directions (atmosphere). If it re-radiates in all directions it is at a lesser frequency, dispersing heat. In a gas molecule it’s energy in and out. If a photon is re-emitted as a duplicate in CO2 it’s a single photon of the same energy being released in one direction. However, that is far rarer than re-radiating in all directions. Therefore, same energy is redistributed in all directions and at lower energy photons/IR radiation.
CO2 absorbs the photon or re-emits a photon. The original photon no longer exists in any case it has been converted to internal energy. Even in emitting the duplicate photon it is a new photon not the same one, or that energy converted re-radiates in all direction as new, lower energy photons. The exact energy in must go out in any form the IR takes in a gas molecule as far as I understand it, after all it is a gas not a liquid or a solid.”
His reply, “The photons will be at the same energy. To be at a different frequency it would have to somehow lose energy. A single photon can’t do that.There’s no reason the new photons should be lower energy.”
It doesn’t FN matter what CO2 does with photons – heat doesn’t get sent back, and their premise that 2x the heat of the Sun gets sent back is retarded, and they are all retards. We’re not in a rational discussion, we’re in a war, and at some point…
/ does that apply to the IR catch and release of CO2 as well /
Yes it does. No law says you have to wait. Might be in the micro-seconds but what does that have to do with climate change on a scale of 60 years or what ever ?
/ I am amazed how many “physicists” I encounter on YTube /
Ever encountered a mathematician ? ask him for the answer to…
(7x – sin(x)) / (x^2 + sin(3x)) = ? when x = 0
Don,t tell yet. He’ll say 0/0 and therefore undetermind. Now you have him in the screws.
From j’Hopital (look wikipedia)
lim x->0 y=(7x – sin(x)) / (x^2 + sin(3x)) = (7 – cos(x)) / (2x + 3cos(3x)) = (7 – cos(0)) / (0 + 3cos(0) = 6 / 3 = 2
If he does not get it, he,s no mathematician. 🙂
WAS I wrong? He is saying CO2 increases energy, creating heat, right? How insane is that? How can a physicists possible believe a gas spontaneously creates more energy than it receives? How are these people getting degrees? After a while talking to these guys you start to question you’re own sanity.
Joseph you should take a nice long vacation away from everything just to reset your sanity.
Chris,
“Absorbing energy in one direction (surface) and re-radiating it in all directions (atmosphere).”
The problem with energy is that it doesn’t flow at all from cold to hot. At all.
There’s a world of difference between an abtract diagram of radiation potential “arrows” of “flows”, and an actual flow of energy.
Our enemies don’t understand the difference between abstract notions and physical energy flows.
Zoe,
I’m actually talking on an older thread that you have commented on:
“The Greenhouse Effect Explained – Sixty Symbols”
Under Daniele Messina
So far the conversation has been pointless.
Note near the start of that video they have flat lines for the Earth! lol I should do a video on that.
Have you seen the physicist? He looks so confused like he had no idea what he’s talking about.
After my exchange noted above “physicist” then replies:”Why would it generate more photons than it received? The number of photons it generates will be set simply and solely by what temperature the gas is at.”
JP
Yes you should do a video on that. His entire video is literally exhausting to watch.
CDM
We’re on the same tread. Posted there 5 months and 2 months ago. NOW I’m starting to get some comeback. There is gonna be fireworks.
CDM
I can’t help being amazed at how thinking brings up more and more solutions to a problem. So, I come back to your question… Is it the same for CO2 in the IR ? Well, I’ve done IR spectroscopy all my life and never seen a sample vaporise or disapear, so the energy must be dissipated in time somehow. Takes 2 micro seconds, 2 milli seconds ? Don’t matter really. But, coming back to that specific CO2 molecule. Even if the energy absorbed at 15 microns is kept by the molecule for a full hour, Isn’t that molecule in the penalty box for that whole period. Since it’s full and can’t take anymore, it can’t play or participate. It’s out of the game until it loses that energy ?
This might be a double, but Gary Novak…website ……nov79.com has some great stuff on catch and release . It seams as though earth based IR will not cause electron orbit jump but causes a bending motion to the c02 molecule which emits multiple energy photons in all directions in approx 500 pico seconds……..Jeff o