This is the audio of a debate I had with a climate alarmist flat-Earth radiative greenhouse effect believer. Just listen and have fun…it gets good.
Categories
-
Join 499 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
Climate of Sophistry 
For future reference, should have put my discord on “do not disturb” as to avoid that notification sound.
Nice listen Joe.
Cheers.
I like the way you described by means of comparing histograms of frequecies active between atoms to explain how an atom at a lower energy state cannot pass its energy to an atom at a higher energy state as the atom at a higher energy state already contains the lower frequencies and thus cannot absorb anymore of them. It might be worth adding this inro your litrature as I think it is explains quite well how photonic energy transfer still obeys the laws of thermodynamics which most of the back radiation mob try to contest .
I appreciate your understanding, thank you. That’s a good point to focus on and draw out a bit more, agreed. I will put it in my next book.
That plus the sun only shining on one side of the planet at any moment and thus providing higher input energy, thus creating all of the extra frequencies should be QED when you think about it methinks
Absolutely. You did see this right, where I get into that:
Joe,
That was very hard to listen to and I had to take some breaks but I managed to persist.
Here is what I think is the numb of his confusion. At 33:36 he states
“To heat you have to have higher energy in than energy out”
So, he has a lot of low frequency energy and ignores its frequency content which is the prerequisite for heat.
I did watch it a while back but probably need to watch it again
Currently trying to develop a plan to steer my way through the great reset. Greta seems onboard with that as well.
This laugh track video illustrates how “climate scientists” are miseducated charlatans who don’t know the first thing about physics, esp. radiative physics.
Postma’s opponent is so dumb he doesn’t realize that the Stefan-Boltzman Law applies to instantaneous radiation, but he’s trying to make it stretch over a period of time to derive the T from the E, that is, work the equation backwards to get a cheat answer. The Earth isn’t a bare rock with no atmosphere like the Moon but has a thick atmosphere that changes everything, sorry for him. A large portion of solar heat is turned into convection, which is way slower than radiation, and gets dissipated as it expands under the decreasing pressure with altitude, ultimately dissipating and removing itself from the reverse S-B equation. There’s no nifty trick to calculate Earth’s temperature with one simple algebraic equation. The full solar strength must be applied to the hemisphere Earth with a computer program that slowly rotates the Earth while calculating the cooling along the way and getting net temperatures at each geographic point and altitude. And that’s with a simplified system with no oceans or clouds.
http://www.historyscoper.com/howmuchdoesthesuncontributetoglobalwarming.html
Worse, Earth surface temperatures have a range of -50C to +50C, and CO2’s 15 micron wavelength has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, which can’t even interfere with it. -80C isn’t heat, and can’t melt an ice cube, thus CO2’s radiation can’t cause global warming.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
I think it’s really psychologically strange how for a moment they have clarity, then like in a cult he glazed over again and again only for you to snap him out of it again and again. In the end, however, he sounded like he chose the cult.
His sacrifice was not in vain for it did help others and that’s all you can hope for and maybe, just maybe, he might come around.
…Eventually.
Thanks Joe you made my day. Was trying to explain this in my own simple way a couple of days ago,my point being that the sun heats the earth and not the atmosphere. My friend said he didn’t believe that the sun didn’t heat the earth but that co2changed the temp and I realized people don’t understand what the hypothesis of the IPCC was all about. I told him you can’t have it both ways either the sun or co2
Thanks again
Cheers Barry, just right.
Book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
Book “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/
http://www.generalistjournal.com
I agree with the very last sentence of the guy you schooled: “that was awesome”!
Lol, that was me. There was a couple of guys in the chat.
They are having the same argument over at PSI lol trying to claim cold objects emits photons that can be absorbed by hotter objects.
https://principia-scientific.com/the-much-misunderstood-climate-issue-of-co2-infrared-absorption/#comment-41311
It’s like trying to claim back vibrations from a woman’s vagina increase the speed of her vibrator.
Just ask this guy how many ice statues does he have to surround himself with before he gets warmer. More ice statues = more radiation therefore more heat, right numbnuts? Same as more CO2 = more radiation therefore more heat, right?
The key word in his misunderstanding of the process is ‘absorption’. What he should be saying is ‘absorption for internal energy gain’. In fact, this is the main problem with all warmist misunderstanding. Does the radiation from the (cold) atmosphere get absorbed for energy gain? No.
Does the radiation from the (hot) Sun get absorbed for energy gain? Yes.
So what happens to the radiation-from-a-cooler-source when it gets to the surface (or receiving object)? It is either transmitted (unlikely) or reflected. What does reflected mean? Is the surface like a mirror? No, reflected in this context means ‘absorbed for no internal energy gain’ and then instantly re-emitted at the same frequency. A better word than absorbed would be ‘accepted’. At no point does the incoming radiation (from a cooler source) add to the internal energy (thermal energy if you like) of the receiving molecule. This is because the radiation does not possess the energy required to elevate the internal energy to a higher emitting level.
So it doesn’t matter how many cold objects you have surrounding you, you won’t get warmer. Ever.
The Backradiation argument is about radiation and absorption, not just radiation.
Nicely argued Joe. That idiotic intellectual was so far out of his depth and clearly don’t understand thermodynamic Heat!! I fear unless one is schooled in TD or Heat-Transfer and the definition for Heat, one likely won’t get it! Radiation energy moves in both directions, but Heat only in one direction (Hot to Cold).
One way to eliminate the confusion is to insist on either 2-arrows (bi-direction Energy flow) between each object in the system; or else only 1-arrow (Heat flow). So, simplistically, that foundation diagram is talking EM Energy hence should have 6-arrows (sun to surface & surface to sun ; surface to atm & atm to surface; atm to space & space to atm). If it is Heat, then only 3-arrows possible.
But the foundational model is just too simple for its own good, and all those foundational diagrams and equations of climate alarm need to be tossed in the bin, and clearly something more akinned to your basic round rotating earth model put in its place. Then Climate Science can start afresh.
^two excellent comments!
Ya those two helped with my simple lay person understanding of it all especially the radiation going in two directions and heat always one way very basic for you guys but hard for the uneducated to grasp. Just thinking this morning that their theory would make a basic refrigeration circuit impossible,the interior could only get hotter.
Barry, I know what you mean 2 years ago I knew nothing of this stuff as does most of the planet. Accurate physics should be started in grade school.
You know Joe I was trying to think of a simple analogy for thermodynamics explaining energy and f/wl simple. I thought of a number example of 1-10 as energy and f/wl.
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=still equals 1 frequency/wavelength but 10 in energy. So if you had 1/10 added to 2/1 you would not get 2\11 you’d end up getting 1/11 for the 2 would not be “more” to overpower the system to move it up to a 2.
Then I started confusing myself after that so it didn’t help when mixing them and figuring thermal equilibrium.
It started to unravel after that.
One more time…
With enough ice statues (and sunlight) he can irradiate himself like a lost half nekkid skier laying on a mountainside found only because he was bright red like a lobster. Definitely chill.
What about the terminator? That place where night meets day. Why is there so little information on this constantly moving zone across the globe and its effect on daily regional weather. Where are the models? Is this too, too much calculation for the toy models of climate?
Has anyone seen the videos of a lunar eclipse as it moves across the atmosphere? The atmosphere is a volatile fluid environment just like its slower cousin the ocean.
You’re my favorite angry physicist Joseph.
Hi CD ya I just started trying to understand the science of it this spring I knew there was something fishy with the politics of it for twenty years,but hard to argue against THEY SAY science if you know nothing of it. Luckily I found this site early on and have at least been able to grasp enough of it from following through Joes explanations and all of the followers comments that I now feel confident in having a conversation about it without being stumped at the least little bit of science. I know the only way to change this stupidity around is to enlighten the lay people so they can see this cult for what it is. The only way to do that is to be able to show in simple terms how wrong the co2 warming theory is so that it becomes second nature to our children and they can then laugh about agw as us old enough laugh about living under 100 feet of ice for the last twenty years.
Have a great day
When you get a minute could you respond to this experiment? I know it’s something to do with allowing heat flow more efficiently. Not the “Greenhouse Effect”. The C02 isn’t creating new energy as shown in the “Greenhouse Effect” model.
https://principia-scientific.org/the-glass-jar-greenhouse-gas-experiment-problem/
Physics is as infinite as the universe, the more you study the less you realize you understand in the universal perspective. all the answers are there, just we don’t have the knowledge to open it all up yet.
Avenues may never be open to us in the current limitations of brain function so when humans advance intellectually as a species our understanding of the universe will advance with it.
boomie my simple take on this is…
Right off the bat it’s the lamp that’s the sophistry (oftentimes the sophistry is laterally right in front of your face). Why need a lamp if he’s proving the ambient temperature increases with CO2? The position of the lamp is the key to the deceit and that lamp I’m sure is not replicating the average solar flux at the incidence of radiation at the TOA.
The lamp is heating one chamber higher than the other which only proves thermodynamics, PV=nRT.
That’s all I got.
Look at these correct experiments…
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKc3n4c9VYS68jZMJsjNgFA
“Don’t forget that simply showing that CO2 absorbs IR is not the GHE.”
-Joseph E Postma
He should be able to just add more CO2 and voila the temperature should increase due to AMBIENT backradiation. Instead they blast it with a hot light bulb nearby giving intense input rather than relying on backradiation. The experiment has nothing to do with the GHE mechanism. What a scheme of experimental sophistry these examples are!
There’s nothing wrong with a hot high intensity high frequency source heating a cool absorptive gas. That’s not the radiative GHE.
What they should show is just simply adding CO2 to a bottle, keeping the pressure the same, spontaneously makes the bottle interior warm up via ambient background radiation.
Who created the model the greenhouse effect is based on?
The earliest paper I’ve found on it is Kiehl/Trenberth from 1998, but I’m fairly sure they were pushing the concept way before that. You’ve got papers on CO2 increasing atmospheric temperature going back to Arrhenius in 1898 but where that specific flat earth derivation diagram comes from, I haven’t been able to discover unless K&T did actually put it out just 22 years ago
ty.
So just filling a bottle with C02 and observing that nothing much happens at all disproves the “Green House Effect”.
Fill a bottle with c02, no water vapor, and another bottle with normal air. Both equal pressure. Stand them in whatever sunlight available. Allow them enough time to reach equilibrium. The bottle filled with C02 will not feel warm. It will not be warmer than the empty bottle. It definitely won’t amplify the available radiation. Just like in the above experiment linked, if you had a thermometer in the bottles they would read the same temperature.
Kind of embarrassed I hadn’t really formed this thought until now. This is the experiment I should be bringing up.
Cool video from that channel CD Marshall linked.
Al Gore pushed the global warming facade as VP…
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/how-al-gore-built-the-global-warming-fraud
…And Maurice Strong through the UN
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Government/Maurice%20Strong.htm
Stephen Wells commented on your video. He has that Rancourt debate on his channel.
also this chat
Linked it twice on accident. First two videos are that debate. I thought it was gone when Rancourt deleted it.
On no Joesph. We proved you wrong last night. Our church had a outdoor Halloween event for the kids because of Covid. It was a cool evening so we sat a big block of ice on the ground and huddled around it for warmth. There was a full moon out and it felt good on our skin. But we noticed that when a cloud passed between us and the moon it felt suddenly colder so we huddled closer to the block of ice. You should also know that…
We were traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight but of mind. A journey into a wonderous land whose boundaries are that of the imagination…
And all these excited CO2 molecules in the lower atmosphere get to bump into the many other gas and particles in the atmosphere before they even get to radiate. Or do the majority of lower altitude CO2 molecules get to radiate before they collide?
Tempus fugit mea navitas ut libero eu dolor auferat. — Time flies as my energy slips away.
Haha good one Terry!
“Rule of thumb” with atmospheric molecules:
For vibration and/or rotational modes, there must exist a magnetic dipole for photon absorption to occur. The molecule is unaffected by nonresonant frequencies, and if the molecule is already excited, even radiation at the correct frequency will be rejected (scattered) by the molecule (thus a heated CO2 molecule will not absorb another photon) and the energy transfer from a photon to increase a temperature requires that the wavelength to be shorter than the wavelength frequency absorbing it.
In simple thermodynamics it is the same concept as hot to cold only on a micro scale. CO2 does not have a magnetic dipole in a relaxed state, which means it must become IR active by way of collision/conduction or heated in some other manner. Atmospheric molecules are either Raman active or IR active as a general rule of thumb, not both at the same time.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Analytical_Chemistry/Book%3A_Molecular_and_Atomic_Spectroscopy_(Wenzel)/5%3A_Raman_Spectroscopy
Radiation is quantized into photons whose energy is proportional to frequency: E=hv .
Joe,
If it is impossible for thermal energy to be transmitted from a cooler object to a warmer object, then it should be impossible for me to use an IR thermometer to read the temperature inside my freezer while standing in my warm kitchen, yet such a thing is indeed possible and anyone with a hardware store nearby can easily prove it.
Your IR thermometer reads that your freezer is COLD, not that it is heating your IR thermometer. Again…there is a difference between energy and heat, and heat is specifically what is required to raise temperature. Not all energy is heat…only the greater frequencies and population of such energies is heat, and is what raises temperature transferring from hot to cold. Your IR thermometer is not getting hotter from looking at your freezer.
You are mincing words…again.
The only thing proven is that interpretation of experimental data without a basis in physics and referencing ALL relevant physics is meaningless.
All I’ve got is OH MY zits worse than I thought.
How flip’n hard is it to understand the difference between thermal heat an thermal energy? Let’s use the ice box since geran got me fascinated with the ice cube analogy.
HEAT is a requirement to increase a temperature. Even an ice cube can emit ‘thermal heat’ on an object colder than itself. What an ice cube can’t do is transfer thermal heat between itself and another ice cube, unless you have a temperature variation in your ice box. Once all the ice cubes are in thermal equilibrium they will be transferring thermal energy between them and not HEAT.
Literally every thermodynamics manual I have read says this from those written in 1960 to present time that is well over a century of proved and verified (through experimentation and testing) thermodynamics.
Climate consensus science is full of obdurate children shouting, “It’s not true it’s true!”.
The science says it is.
Joe, the central claim being made isn’t that heat is being transferred from the freezer to the sensor (heat being defined as a transfer of energy resulting from a temperature differential); indeed the net flow of energy will be from the thermopile to the freezer. The claim being made is that there is a transfer of thermal energy from the freezer to the thermopile. If there were not, the thermometer could not measure the temperature of any object colder than the sensor.
Similarly, the central claim being made about the greenhouse effect is not that the atmosphere is heating the surface, since indeed the net flow of energy will always be from the surface to the atmosphere. The claim is that the atmosphere is transferring thermal energy into the surface, and so the net radiant flux into the surface is higher than it would be if there were no atmosphere.
Imagine if we switched the sun off so that the earth is radiating energy to space and there is no incoming solar flux to replace it. In this scenario, the planet would cool, with or without an atmosphere, but it would cool more slowly with an atmosphere than without. What you’re arguing against is the notion that the planet would warm up in this scenario, which is not a claim actually being made.
It cools more slowly with an atmosphere because there’s more thermal mass, and because the atmosphere has low emissivity. This isn’t the greenhouse effect. You don’t seem to know what the GHE is.
Again, your freezer doesn’t heat your IR sensor, neither does the cold atmosphere heat the warmer surface with atmospheric radiation. Without heat transfer, no temperature increase – please familiarize yourself with the first law of thermodynamics.
“the central claim being made isn’t that heat is being transferred from the freezer to the sensor (heat being defined as a transfer of energy resulting from a temperature differential); indeed the net flow of energy will be from the thermopile to the freezer. The claim being made is that there is a transfer of thermal energy from the freezer to the thermopile.”
Yes, and this thermal energy does not increase the temperature of the warmer thermopile, since what is required to increase temperature is heat and the energy from the freezer cannot act as heat for the thermopile.
“If there were not, the thermometer could not measure the temperature of any object colder than the sensor.”
It does so by recording relative darkness, by recording that the freezer is dark compared to the warmer surroundings and its own temperature. It is calibrated as such.
“Similarly, the central claim being made about the greenhouse effect is not that the atmosphere is heating the surface, since indeed the net flow of energy will always be from the surface to the atmosphere. The claim is that the atmosphere is transferring thermal energy into the surface, and so the net radiant flux into the surface is higher than it would be if there were no atmosphere.”
And this is the sophistry of mincing words. If the atmosphere is not heating the surface, as you admit, then the atmosphere cannot be increasing the temperature of the surface since heat is specifically what is required to increase temperature as per the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, the thermal energy of the atmosphere, while existent, cannot heat something warmer than it, which is specifically what the greenhouse effect requires – an increase of temperature. You are in full contradiction of yourself, and of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The question is not about net radiant flux with fluxes adding, the physics is about heat transfer as per the 1st Law and also as per the heat flow equations which go into the 1st Law, with fluxes subtracting to determine which way heat flows and which object can therefore heat another (hot to cool only).
“Imagine if we switched the sun off so that the earth is radiating energy to space and there is no incoming solar flux to replace it. In this scenario, the planet would cool, with or without an atmosphere, but it would cool more slowly with an atmosphere than without. What you’re arguing against is the notion that the planet would warm up in this scenario, which is not a claim actually being made.”
The “Earth + atmosphere” system cools more slowly than a “Earth only no atmosphere” system because there’s more thermal mass in the former case, and because in that case the atmosphere has low emissivity. This is not the greenhouse effect. You don’t seem to know what the GHE is.
Again, your freezer doesn’t heat your IR sensor, neither does the cold atmosphere heat the warmer surface with atmospheric radiation. Without heat transfer, there can be no temperature increase: please familiarize yourself with the first law of thermodynamics, and then, please also familiar yourself with the heat flow equation that the first law uses. For example:
First Law: dU = Q + W
Heat Flow: Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4)
The equations tell you right there how to increase temperature, and that to do it, you need heat, and heat comes from something warmer, and to determine how much heat, you always subtract fluxes.
Sorry…you simply have no position. Time for a reset.
“A creature that cannot grasp the mutual exclusiveness of A and not A has no difficulty in lying; more than that, such a creature has not even any consciousness of lying, being without a standard of truth. Such a creature if endowed with speech will lie without knowing it, without the possibility of knowing it.”
Otto Weininger – 1928
“Who created the model the greenhouse effect is based on?”
@boomie789
It goes back a long way. Certainly before my time at uni in the 1970s.
I did a deep dive on this a few years ago.
Have a look at Figure 4 Section 9 in this paper from 1954:
Houghton, G. H. (1954) On the Annual Heat Balance of the Northern Hemisphere. Journal of Meteorology, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1-9.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170626172712/http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281954%29011%3C0001%3AOTAHBO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Thank you very much. Ill save that somewhere.
Nice find. This is a good research project to do to find who came up with the first diagram like this. Note as always how the adiabatic gradient is left out, which dictates that the warmest part must be at the bottom and the average in the middle – they leave that out and replace it with backradiation.
*to create the gradient instead.
Want one with the text too.
Wow excellent. That’s great, because it exposes the basic underlying error: “heat balance”.
We know today that the great difficulty is in distinguishing heat, energy, and temperature. I am sure it would have been just the same in 1954, as this has always been the problem in thermodynamics since its inception. The failure to distinguish the important physical and physics-difference between energy, heat, and temperature.
And of course the other thing to note, again, is that this is a model of something which simply doesn’t exist. The model is a fiction, not in the sense of a free-body diagram where the body and the arrows indicating forces acting upon it are analogous, but this is a fiction in the truest sense. It is a model of something that doesn’t exist, hence is an absolute fiction. The surface does not exist, ever, anywhere, at any time, in a state of energy balance…the surface temperature is always changing.
I mean we can see how and why people originated, made, and continue to make, this mistake. You can understand how they can imagine it to represent something meaningful. But are these people then also capable of understanding that such diagrams and models do not represent anything about reality at all? And that if you model un-reality, you only get un-reality out of it?
There is no such thing as “heat balance”. There is heat flow.
There is heat flow. There is no such thing as heat “balance”.
barry: “their theory would make a basic refrigeration circuit impossible,the interior could only get hotter”
Brilliant comment. Exactly.
Joe, thanks for taking the time to provide a thorough response. I appreciate your engagement.
You are correct that the freezer does not raise the temperature of the thermopile. In fact, it causes the temperature of the thermopile to decrease from when we had it pointed at ambient air. But that is not because there is no energy being transferred from the freezer to the thermopile, it is because the net transfer of energy is from warmer to colder, in keeping with the second law. We know there is energy being transferred from freezer to thermopile because it otherwise could not provide a temperature reading.
This is the point I wanted to make with the example.
If there is energy being transferred from cold to hot, then the net loss of energy from the thermopile is lower than it would be if we were pointing the thermometer at empty space. That is the same situation with our own atmosphere.
We can simplify our ‘sun switched off’ example a bit more to make it even more clear:
Let us take a sphere that is completely dark (it absorbs 100% of incident radiation) at a temperature of 200 degrees C, and suspend it in a vacuum. It only loses energy via radiation. Will the sphere cool more quickly, less quickly, or at the same rate if we suspend a second sphere at 100 degrees C in the same vacuum?
Still not getting it. The greenhouse effect model postulates that the 100C sphere would INCREASE the temperature of the 200C sphere above 200C. We are not talking about cooling more slowly or quickly. That is not the greenhouse effect. You are not even interpreting the model you are defending correctly.
The IR sensor measures a difference in flux…from itself to the things it points at.
The climate GHE is not about the rate of cooling. It is specifically about the Sun not heating the Earth to above -18C, and therefore the postulate that the colder atmosphere adds more thermal energy to the surface and raises the surface’s temperature, thus implying that heat can transfer from cold to hot since this is what would be required for the cold atmosphere to raise the temperature of the warmer surface.
This is all about simply re-casting the climate GHE into a new phraseology with a new mechanism, which doesn’t actually even replicate what the original climate GHE was doing which was increasing temperature. Now its just talking about reducing the rate of cooling.
This argument cycle is old, and boring, and has been debunked one million times.
“Will the sphere cool more quickly, less quickly, or at the same rate if we suspend a second sphere at 100 degrees C in the same vacuum?”
It depends on the view factors. And this scenario of the idea of cooling more slowly down from a height of 200C has nothing to do with the GHE where the Sun cannot heat to above -18C and so the colder atmosphere heats the surface some more…
Your arguments are lost. You have no position.
You are the guy always shitting on my post in r/climateskeptics too. u/Weekly_Rise
@boomie…interesting
Joseph I think some of these guys need shock therapy.
Just like the climate scientist I was talking to who would not debate you…
“I’m curious. Why do you think radiative forcing does not exist when you are aware of the atmosphere and basic physics ? Radiative forcing is, as I and many physicists claim, real and even if it doesn’t dictate the temperatures in the atmosphere as you suggest, it certainly influences the temperatures of earth’s surface. Whilst you are right by saying that the troposphere is a Carnot cycle, the atmosphere is not, as the majority of physicists will confirm.”
Naturally I did explain it does exist from hot to cold but what he wanted was the double flux transfer.
Joe – isn’t the alarmist argument that the heat is ‘stored’? It’s not that the atmosphere is heating itself, more co2 raises the effective radiating layer which means a hotter equilibrium temperature (you touched on this in your vid but I’d like to know more thanks).
Joe, that is correct. The fact that it detects a difference in flux means it is receiving a flux – i.e. it is receiving a transfer of thermal energy from an object colder than itself. That fact seems to contradict the position you’re trying to defend, and it is exactly what the GHE model postulates.
The thought experiment I proposed is directly relevant – we are simply envisioning a system with the sun switched off. We could simulate a sun heating the first sphere by inserting a heating element into it – now it will not cool down, but the physics haven’t changed. We can imagine what it’s equilibrium might be if it is suspended alone in a vacuum. What would happen to its equilibrium temperature if we introduced a second sphere suspended in the vacuum? We know both spheres are exchanging thermal energy (per our IR thermometer experiment).
Boomie, yes, that’s me. I followed the link to this video from a Reddit thread.
A transfer of thermal energy is not a transfer of heat.
“isn’t the alarmist argument that the heat is ‘stored’?”
Sometimes this phrasing is used, and in as much it is meaningless. Heat is a verb, an action, it cannot be “stored”. Heat can be “transferred”, and is itself the process of transfer. Via the first law, dU = Q + W, heat is a form of work, and as you know, work is a verb, an action. Can you store “work”? So you see, even the very language of the climate greenhouse effect is not consistent with thermodynamics…it uses phrases and introduces concepts which are fictional, just like its flat Earth energy balance diagram is a fiction.
“It’s not that the atmosphere is heating itself,”
Quite specifically, the model of the climate GHE is that the colder atmosphere raises the temperature of the warmer surface…with twice the heating power of the Sun according to the literature, in fact. So yes, the atmosphere is heating itself by heating the surface which then makes the atmosphere warmer again, indeed.
“more co2 raises the effective radiating layer which means a hotter equilibrium temperature”
So now we have the introduction of the third climate GHE argument, where the original diagram and its original meaning and interpretation is dispensed with a second time after the “slowed cooling” argument was debunked. The original diagram of the physics of the climate GHE shows and explains nothing relating to this new postulate of raising the effective radiating layer. So as I said…we now have a third argument, a second alternative version, of the climate GHE. And these three version arguments are mutually exclusive to each other. This inconsistency is itself proof that the climate GHE has no basis in logical rational reality.
The atmosphere has a fixed depth, and a generally fixed or given lapse rate. This idea of a raised emission height was checked for, and it doesn’t exist…there was no troposphere hotspot.
@Alex
Read this.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/02/26/does-trapping-running-make-running-run-faster/
Let me know if that clears it up or not.
“The fact that it detects a difference in flux means it is receiving a flux – i.e. it is receiving a transfer of thermal energy from an object colder than itself.”
First Law: dU = Q + W
Heat Flow: Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4)
The cold object cannot increase the temperature of the warmer object.
“That fact seems to contradict the position you’re trying to defend, and it is exactly what the GHE model postulates.”
You mice words, again. The cool object can emit, but it does not increase the temperature of the warmer object.
“The thought experiment I proposed is directly relevant ”
No…it has nothing to do with the climate GHE.
“A creature that cannot grasp the mutual exclusiveness of A and not A has no difficulty in lying; more than that, such a creature has not even any consciousness of lying, being without a standard of truth. Such a creature if endowed with speech will lie without knowing it, without the possibility of knowing it.”
Otto Weininger – 1928
“The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. They had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.
I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.”
We now have the tools available to detect whether or not we are talking with a conscious entity, or an unconscious entity of some form. We have historical examples of people noticing this same phenomenon.
Not all energy is heat. Temperature is neither energy nor heat. A vs. not A.
Temperature is a quality, an adjective.
Heat is a verb, a movement or transfer.
Energy is a noun, and a quantity.
First Law: dU = Q + W
Heat Flow: Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4)
An increase in temperature must come from heat.
Heat must come from something warmer.
How much heat you get, and temperature increase, depends on how much warmer the other thing is, and is a difference of energy.
“The thought experiment I proposed is directly relevant ”
Two spheres sitting at some distance from each other in space has nothing to do with the alarmist GHE. Why would we need to analogize the alarmist GHE to this wildly unrelated scenario when we can just talk about the alarmist GHE itself and what it requires and implies… Yet another example of something not having a firm footing, when it can only be argued by analogy rather than simply directly discussed in its own details.
Joe, can you humor my though experiment and address the question I posed? I believe it is quite an import one:
What will happen to the equilibrium temperature of the first sphere if we introduce a second sphere suspended in the vacuum? Will it be the same, lower, or higher than it was in the absence of the second sphere?
This thought experiment clarifies a fundamental confusion I see frequently expressed about this topic.
Man the new Hunter Biden stuff that is out I don’t even think I can post here.
There is one of him in an orgy and you can see what looks like kid legs/arms in the mix.
There is also a video of him smoking crack and getting a footjob on the couch. It’s close to 15 minutes long.
You can find them here.
https://wearethene.ws/
There’s really no point, because it really cannot demonstrate that a cooler object can raise the temperature of a warmer object.
The answer is that the cooler object will not raise the temperature of the warmer object. If the spheres are distant then there is no effect at all whatsoever. If they are the same size and just out of physical contact, say, then they occupy a significant view factor. This still won’t lead to the cooler object raising the temperature of the warmer object, but just like the “Earth + atmosphere” vs. the “Earth no atmosphere” they share a view factor which makes them be a shared larger system with greater thermal mass and therefore will cool somewhat more slowly if they start off at some temperature (unpowered). And this is not the alarmist GHE.
Joe,
My thought experiment is a simplification. It is the same physics but stripped of any additional complexities so that we can examine just the basic elements first. It will be easy to broaden the analogy to encompass the whole GHE once we find a common understanding of the simplest form.
Will you humor me and address the question I posed?
What will happen to the equilibrium temperature of the first sphere when we introduce the second? Will the equilibrium temperature remain the same, will it decrease, or will it increase?
The answer is that the cooler passive object will not raise the temperature of the warmer object.
If the first sphere is powered, and the second one passive, the added presence of the second one will not cause the temperature of the first one to raise.
Notwithstanding that the cooler atmosphere is touching the warmer surface and is actively cooling the warmer surface by convection.
Something that is cooling the surface cannot be simultaneously warming it. It’s one or the other. And we all know that standing in something cold, makes you cold.
Joe,
I posit that in my thought experiment, the equilibrium temperature of the first sphere will indeed be higher in the presence of the second sphere, and we can see this through the simple physics.
The first sphere will warm up until it is radiating with an intensity equal to all energy inputs (if it did not it would be in violation of the conservation of energy). If the heating element is the sole energy input, it will warm to equilibrium with the heating element. However, we know that the second sphere is also providing an energy input (from the IR thermometer experiment), and so the total energy input the first sphere needs to balance at equilibrium is not just the heating element, but the heating element plus the energy input from the second sphere.
Therefore, the equilibrium temperature of the warmer sphere is higher in the presence of a second, cooler sphere than it would be if it were alone.
We can add complexity to this simple model by putting the spheres in contact, where they will exchange energy via conduction as well as radiation, but the radiative dynamics are unchanged.we are getting closer and closer to an atmospheric greenhouse effect.
The atmosphere IS in physical contact with the surface, and in so being, it cools the surface via convection. This fact renders the not-touching spheres thought experiment defunct and irrelevant.
The cooler atmosphere IS in physical contact with the warmer surface and cools the surface via convection.
“we are getting closer and closer to an atmospheric greenhouse effect.”
No, you’re not, because the cooler atmosphere is in complete contact with the surface, cooling the surface via convection. This isn’t possible to replicate with this spheres thought experiment.
“we know that the second sphere is also providing an energy input”
If it is unpowered with no heating element of its own, then no, it is not providing new energy. And it is certainly not providing heat given that it is cooler. With no heat, no temperature increase.
First Law: dU = Q + W
Heat Flow: Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4)
An increase in temperature must come from heat.
Heat must come from something warmer.
How much heat you get, and temperature increase, depends on how much warmer the other thing is, and is a difference of energy.
“I posit … ”
You can posit all you want. One thing you cannot do is refer to any equations which support the supposition.
“Who created the model the greenhouse effect is based on?”
I believe Richard Lindzen had something to do with it’ – http://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/greenhouse.pdf
“If it is impossible for thermal energy to be transmitted from a cooler object to a warmer object, then it should be impossible for me to use an IR thermometer to read the temperature inside my freezer while standing in my warm kitchen,”
No-one said it is impossible for ANY sort of “energy to be transmitted from a cooler object to a warmer object” – I assume you mean by radiation – it simply cannot cause an increase in temperature of the warmer object.
Clearly this guy has been reading Roy Spencer’s gibberish – Soencer doesn’t seem to appreciate the ability of an IR thermometer to read any temperature comes from the power supplied by the battery or other electrical supply.
Besides Pictet proved beyond doubt by experiment more than 2520 years ago the radiation from a cold object – a beaker full of snow and ice – does not increase the temperature of the thermometer – quite the opposite occurs.
As for those bottle experiments with thermometers in them – not the one in the video above which I liked – they prove the exact opposite of the nonsense of the greenhouse effect !
Firstly CO2’s prime absorption band is absorbed wholly by the glass so the lights provide no radiation to the thermometers inside the glass in those wavelengths.
Secondly the thermometers do NOT measure the temperature of the gases – they measure the temperature the incident light is capable of inducing in the material the thermometer is made from – mostly metal or glass with high absorbtivity.
The difference between the bottle of air and CO2 has to do with well known physical properties of the gases.
CO2 has a lower thermal conductivity than ordinary air. Thus the irradiated and heated thermometer in the air bottle will have a lower temperature than the one in the CO2 bottle because both thermometers are losing energy – i.e. “trying” to cool – by radiation which will be ~equal in either and by conduction/convection to the glass and ultimately to the exterior.
As CO2 is the better insulator, poorer conductor, the thermometer in this environment will be unable to lose energy at the same rate as the one in air and must reflect a higher temperature BUT NOT THE TEMPERATURE OF THE GAS !
Loads of people don’t believe this but it is easy to show – get a spotlight and a thermometer and focus the light on the thermometer and see the thermometer can be maintained at a higher temperature than the surrounding air easily. Or step into the sunlight.
People who think they are clever with all their gobbledygook “radiation balance back radiation heating” are simply idiots.
The second sphere is not providing “new” energy, since the energy it is radiating came originally from the first sphere, but it is indeed providing an energy input. At equilibrium E_in = E_out, so the equilibrium temperature of the first sphere must be higher with the second sphere present.
We needn’t think about this only in the abstract – photons emitted by the second sphere are absorbed by molecules in the first, increasing their kinetic energy. The first sphere will be emitting photons faster than it is receiving them from the second, so the net flow of energy will always be from warmer to colder, but it will be “losing” photons more slowly than it would be in the second spheres absence.
If back radiation is capable of heat transfer then Einstein’s Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect and his proof of the “work function” is invalid – which clearly it is not !
“In Einstein’s picture, an individual photon arriving at the surface in Fig. 38.1a or 38.2 is absorbed by a single electron. This energy transfer is an all-or-nothing process, in contrast to the continuous transfer of energy in the wave theory of light; the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all. The electron can escape from the surface only if the energy it acquires is greater than the work function .”
See – “This energy transfer is an all-or-nothing process”
And the back radiation nonsense flies in the face of quantum physics as established by Bohr and his extensive study oh hydrogen atoms and electron orbit levels.
Besides all of that simply ask one of the clowns to give you a model with temperatures and Stefan-Boltzmann equation solutions and them show them how the exact same mathematical calculations completely fail when using Planck’s equation.
It is gobbledygook – Pictet proved it is bullshit 220 years ago – none of the idiotic advocates can point to any empirical evidence – only highly contrived “though experiments” which are complete tosh !
-“The second sphere is not providing “new” energy”
-“but it is indeed providing an energy input”
Contradiction in terms. NOT NEW ENERGY. Downstream-energy cannot come back to increase temperature – various formulations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
“At equilibrium E_in = E_out”
And the E_out of the surface of the first sphere is always E_out = AsT^4. The second sphere does not change the AsT^4 from the surface of the first sphere, given that this is the definition of the thermal emission from the first sphere.
“photons emitted by the second sphere are absorbed by molecules in the first, increasing their kinetic energy”
This would be heat flow from cold to hot…this description is precisely heat transfer, but it occurs only from hot to cold, not from the cold sphere to the hot one. So we come back to precisely the first formulation of the alarmist GHE, where heat is required to transfer from cold to hot. You have re-stated precisely the most common formulation of the alarmist greenhouse effect, and you have explicitly described the mechanism of heat transfer, but you are insisting that it occurs from cold to hot. Again, please see:
First Law: dU = Q + W
Heat Flow: Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4)
“the net flow of energy will always be from warmer to colder”
The “net” flow is the heat, as per heat flow Q above, and this transfers from the hot object to cold, raising the temperature of the cold body. This downstream cooler energy cannot reverse and recycle to add heat back to the source.
Since you have now demonstrated that you are an NPC, following the examples of the quotations which describe you given above, I will be blocking you. You are not a conscious entity, and your programming needs to be reset.
Either deleted, or reprogrammed…but what’s the difference really, am I right??? 😉
Reprogramming IS deletion 🙂
And we got ouwsewves some cwrack [addicted?] pwogwammas up in heeya.
NPC: “There is no physical mechanism that prevents what you refer to as “downstream energy” from being absorbed by the surface of the first sphere.”
Yes….the equation for Q was never presented. The equation for the 1st law and temperature increase was never presented….lol.
The physical mechanism is that the lower frequency distribution of photons from the cooler body cannot induce the higher frequencies of higher temperature into the warmer body which already has a higher frequency distribution. The physical mechanism is that the cold body does not have what the warmer body needs, i.e. higher frequencies, required to increase the warmer body’s temperature. The physical mechanism is physical force, the ability to perform physical work. Energy can be spent without doing work.
NPC: “Your second paragraph is a word salad.”
That is what thermodynamics seems to you, I agree. Not all energy is heat, which is the same thing as saying that not all energy can do work. For a photon to do thermal work on a molecule, to “raise its temperature”, it has to be able to induce a higher frequency of oscillation than the molecule is already vibrating at, and it can only do this if it has said higher frequency. If a molecule is already vibrating at high frequency, a low frequency wave will not induce higher frequency into the molecule’s vibration. The low frequency wave cannot do work on the molecule already vibrating at higher frequency.
NPC: “Infrared light carries energy, energy that is converted to kinetic energy when the light is absorbed.”
First Law: dU = Q + W. Heat Flow: Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4). IR light is only converted to thermal energy if the object is cooler…lower frequency than the IR light. Not all energy is heat…not all IR EM energy can be converted to internal material thermal energy.
NPC: “The emission of radiant energy from the first sphere lowers its kinetic energy, but absorption of radiant energy from sphere two increases its kinetic energy,”
First Law: dU = Q + W. Heat Flow: Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4). IR light is only converted to thermal energy if the object is cooler…lower frequency than the IR light. Not all energy is heat…not all IR EM energy can be converted to internal material thermal energy.
NPC (now): “You keep repeating that heat does not flow from cold to hot when that has never been in question. The scenario I’ve described does not have a heat flow from cold to hot.”
NPC (previous comment): “photons emitted by the second sphere are absorbed by molecules in the first, increasing their kinetic energy”
Must I quote Uncle again?
NPC: “I see that I’m now blocked, so I’ll leave the conversation here. Again I appreciate that you attempted to engage on this topic.”
You will be reprogrammed…soon.
Joseph this is the kind of stuff you are up against, this guy is a “Doctor in climate science from Oxford”
aljo1816 the biggest problem you have is that you seem to have missed out on having the shit kicked out of you by an older bigger child when you were growing. Most of us grow out of being a complete ignorant argumentative fucking prick after getting slapped around for persevering with non stop garbage for too long.
Now I have genuine concern for your health and safety. Frankly I’m surprised you’re still alive to be honest. Adults tend to be able to put up with such bullshit from annoying full of shit cocksuckers for a lot longer than kids do, the problem is that when an adult finally snaps, they tend to really snap and smash the annoying prick’s brains out with a baseball bat. How that hasn’t happened to you years ago is a true miracle of nature.
But just because you keep getting away with twisting the truth, constantly pushing, defending and continuing to argue lies and deceit in the face of repeated patience and corrections doesn’t mean you will get away with it forever. I assume you are just as much of a wanker in real life away from internet blogs too. Obviously you are in no danger here, but you are still reinforcing a dangerous habit and one day you will be in the real world and unable to stop yourself being a lying deceiving manipulative arguing to defraud douche bag to the wrong person.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you when that moment comes
Get in touch with Dr David Evans for someone who can/will discuss your theories with you. Via blog JONOVA maybe. “Dr David Evans climate”
Weird how he could say this.
“If the first sphere is powered, and the second one passive, the added presence
of the second one will not cause the temperature of the first one to raise.”
Ok, let’s look at an example…
Suppose S is a powered sphere which at equilibrium emits u W/m^2.
Now introduce a passive sphere T, which is cooler than S.
S radiates in all directions, but some radiation, say v W/m^2, is absorbed by T.
T’s temperature will change until T emits v W/m^2.
Because v < u, T’s final temperature will be less than S’s.
Like S, T radiates in all directions and some of its radiation, say w W/m^2, will be
absorbed by S. Since S is always warmer than T, S’s temperature does not change (according to the Postma interpretation).
Now S radiates u W/m^2, with v W/m^2 going to T and (u-v) W/m^2 leaving the S-T system.
And T radiates v W/m^2, with w W/m^2 going to S and (v-w) W/m^2 leaving the S-T system.
Hence the total radiation leaving the S-T system is (u-v)+(v-w) = (u-w) W/m^2.
The S-only system radiates u W/m^2, but the S-T system radiates (u-w) W/m^2.
The w W/m^2 from T which can’t warm S is instead retained as “internal” energy.
It would appear that the presence of T causes S to accumulate energy essentially
without bound.
Both the S-only and the S-T systems have the same power input, but at equilibrium the S-only system emits more radiation than the S-T system, while the S-T system gains an unlimited amount of energy without warming up.
How do you explain this?
Ya Boomie that’s what I thought maybe he has done a complete 180 on this
Yet none of them can surrender their “pet belief” in the GHGE. It is so bizarre to me how they can claim the atmosphere keeps the planet warmer than the Sun.
It is like being taught arithmetic that 1+2=3 and when you get older you say, new experts have concluded that 1+1 can now equal 3 if you work the math out right.
But that only equals 2.
Correct, but with new math it can now equal 3 we just “back add” a +1 so it’s the same as 1+2.
And then claim that you can’t add 1+2 any longer to reach 3, you have to use 1+1 and then add a +1 for the math to work out right in the model.
Ya cd it is new math I watched that video, how can you argue against stupid when they only have arrogance as a defence. Trump bad ghe good. Never a single fact in ten minutes of criticism. I’ve said my entire adult life that you can not win an argument with an idiot.
“this is the kind of stuff you are up against”
That’s the brilliance of it isn’t it – invent a new artificial field of science which incorporates only a portion of complete physics which dispenses with basic thermodynamic concepts, invent fictional abstractions as the basis of the field, make it a “cause”, and then give under-educated low-IQ midwits doctorate degrees! Just give morons doctorate degrees, the title goes straight to their ego & heads and makes them believe themselves invincible paragons of virtue and intelligence.
There is nothing more corrupting to the mid-wit class than the bestowal of official title and degree. Just look at them. Just look at them ignore heat from the Sun, and invent fictional models which represent reality in no way whatsoever (energy balance at the surface…two spheres beside each other!!??!!?? LOLOL!!!!), ignore the equations of the very equation which they pretend to reference…
As has been discussed, it is amazing that real humans can actually behave like this. It is amazing what a degree can do to a person’s mind. One seriously must consider if we are dealing with some form of artificial intelligence (non-intelligence, that is).
@DonA – We’ve chatted with David Evans and his wife Jo Nova, and they both believe that heat can transfer from cold to hot.
As we’ve been learning in the political world, the bad guys co-opt people via blackmail, bribe, peer-pressure, and whatever means, and it may simply be the case, as it mostly clearly is, that many of these front-men of skepticism are controlled opposition.
@defunct – good handle BTW…very apropos in the light of the need of some reprogramming to occur:
Firstly, I’m not really interested in random thoughts which have nothing to do with the climate and the alarmist GHE. Should I come to you and ask you about the breeding habits of zebras and elephants? Why would you even post a question like this? Besides, you’re either the previous fellow with the same question using a VPN to change your IP, or you’re another mind-jacked mask wearer, which, of course, still makes you equivalent to the previous fellow. Asking a question over again doesn’t change the answers which were given previously…
Two spheres beside each other has nothing to do with a gas on top of a single sphere which is continuously cooling the sphere’s surface by convection. Again, this whole “argument by [poor/unrelated] analogy” shtick is boring, old, low IQ, sophistical, ridiculous, and stupid. We can just talk about the alarmist GHE directly…lol! Of course, talking about it directly is what exposes it as being utterly absurd and ridiculous with its flat Earth theory and its sun-heating denial and its atmosphere providing twice the heating power of the Sun! haha So, yes…no wonder you mask-wearing NPCs prefer to argue about other things rather than the real thing.
“Hey guys…I have this idea…but instead of telling you about the idea, I’m going to talk about other things with no connection to my idea whatsoever, and in doing so, I expect you to then believe in my new idea which if we actually talked about it you would laugh at and not believe in it.”
Don’t you people realize how embarrassing you are? You’re a ridiculous species.
The explanation is that you’re not doing physics. You’re leaving out heat flow, you’re leaving out view factors, you are once again insisting that a cold object can heat a warmer one.
Adding mass to a system will not raise the system’s temperature.
You start with a system which is powered…the first sphere. Great. Adding passive mass with all other things being equal to any system cannot result in a temperature increase.
The first line of text in the figure above means that heat (Q) is a function of the view factor (VF) and the difference in the 4th powers of temperature which is of course coming from the S-B Law.
Joe, you need to provide a source for your claim that a molecule can absorb IR without any change in its energy. This would seem to violate the first law of thermodynamics, since it requires that the energy carried by the absorbed photon simply vanishes from the system.
No, YOU need to provide a source for the claim that a cold body can increase the temperature of a warmer body via its radiation.
And I have provided the sources. They are the first law of thermodynamics and the equation for heat flow, which have been posted numerous times.
No energy vanishes…you’re just making things up, inventing things, to suit your flat Earth cold sun narrative. And you’re blocked.
Does a wave of water “MUH VANISH!!” when it bounces off the wall of the tub without the wall of the tub having had any effect on it whatsoever? Your bath proves that waves can have zero effect on something and yet they don’t vanish.
Joe, I’m not sure why you unblocked me today only to block me again, but knock yourself out if you want to block anyone who dissents from your views. Kind of an ironic action to take on a post titled “This Is Why They Won’t DEBATE ME!” Maybe no one is debating you because you block everyone who tries? Just food for thought.
You haven’t provided any source, the statements of the first law and heat flow equation do not suffice to explain your description here:
“Not all energy is heat, which is the same thing as saying that not all energy can do work. For a photon to do thermal work on a molecule, to “raise its temperature”, it has to be able to induce a higher frequency of oscillation than the molecule is already vibrating at, and it can only do this if it has said higher frequency. If a molecule is already vibrating at high frequency, a low frequency wave will not induce higher frequency into the molecule’s vibration. The low frequency wave cannot do work on the molecule already vibrating at higher frequency.”
You seem to be implying that a photon can be absorbed by a molecule without any consequent change in the molecule’s energy. I appreciate that you followed this up by restating the first law, because it plainly states that energy in a closed system cannot be created or destroyed.
I had to block one of your alts and I accidentally wrote over the previous handle. You’re blocked again though so don’t worry.
And I have debated you here, extensively. But you just keep saying the same thing over and over again and will not reference and ignore the equation for heat flow and the first law.
You’re in an error loop and your program is crashed. It needs reset and the error state needs to be fixed in code.
The two equations of the 1st Law and heat flow are exactly captured by that statement! hahaha
First Law: dU = Q + W
Heat Flow: Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4)
From this post:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2015/05/26/the-sophistry-of-backradiation/
So yes…the two equations there, and their meaning, and what they represent, shown graphically in the case of the 2nd equation for heat flow, are precisely described by my statement. So you have just admitted that you know nothing. So let us go over the quotation which describe you again, since this is not a problem of science but a problem of your programming and what your mind represents:
“A creature that cannot grasp the mutual exclusiveness of A and not A has no difficulty in lying; more than that, such a creature has not even any consciousness of lying, being without a standard of truth. Such a creature if endowed with speech will lie without knowing it, without the possibility of knowing it.”
Otto Weininger – 1928
“The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. They had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.
I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.”
“That’s the brilliance of it isn’t it – invent a new artificial field of science which incorporates only a portion of complete physics which dispenses with basic thermodynamic concepts, invent fictional abstractions as the basis of the field, make it a “cause”, and then give under-educated low-IQ midwits doctorate degrees! Just give morons doctorate degrees, the title goes straight to their ego & heads and makes them believe themselves invincible paragons of virtue and intelligence.
There is nothing more corrupting to the mid-wit class than the bestowal of official title and degree. Just look at them. Just look at them ignore heat from the Sun, and invent fictional models which represent reality in no way whatsoever (energy balance at the surface…two spheres beside each other!!??!!?? LOLOL!!!!), ignore the equations of the very equation which they pretend to reference…
As has been discussed, it is amazing that real humans can actually behave like this. It is amazing what a degree can do to a person’s mind. One seriously must consider if we are dealing with some form of artificial intelligence (non-intelligence, that is).”
And you keep on loving to invent things that I never said…hahaha…which you give yourself permission to do because you don’t understand heat flow or the first law, or frequency distributions, but you have a degree which makes you believe yourself omnipotent. And you refuse to go back and actually debate the veracity of the originating alarmist GHE model because when we go there your fraud becomes as clear as day, and so you hide in these unrelated arguments by analogy. Sad. Funny though too.
” the statements of the first law and heat flow equation do not suffice to explain your description here:”
I mean, just….hhhhhhhaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaahhhaaaaaa…….. hahahahahahha
Hahaha. lol.
First Law: dU = Q + W
Heat Flow: Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4)
“Not all energy is heat, which is the same thing as saying that not all energy can do work. For a photon to do thermal work on a molecule, to “raise its temperature”, it has to be able to induce a higher frequency of oscillation than the molecule is already vibrating at, and it can only do this if it has said higher frequency. If a molecule is already vibrating at high frequency, a low frequency wave will not induce higher frequency into the molecule’s vibration. The low frequency wave cannot do work on the molecule already vibrating at higher frequency.”
^almost a perfect description of the two above equations along with a graphical representation of the frequency distributions involved, etc.
“MUH DON’T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS!!!” hahahahahahahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joe, the graph rather seems to contradict your point. The colder body does not radiate in the shorter wavelengths with the power of the warmer body, but both bodies radiate in the longer wavelength spectrum and consequently there is a distribution of energy states of the molecules in the warmer body and some of those molecules will indeed be able to absorb radiant energy in the longer wavelengths emitted by the colder body.
Again, if the warmer body is absorbing photons emitted by the colder body (and we know that it is from our IR thermometer experiment) with no change in energy in the warmer body, then the first law is being violated.
[JP: Of course the graphs show overlapping frequency activations. And yet, refer to the equation Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4). Heat flows from hot to cold.
The hotter object, while having higher-frequency activations that the cooler object does not, also has greater intensity over all corresponding wavelengths. The greater intensity means that the cooler object has no higher intensity to share to the warm object…the warm object can only send that information over the cool object.
Your IR thermometer measures a cooler object…it does not measure that it is being heated by a cooler object. Again with you sophists…misinterpreting and lying about everything that you can.
A cold object not being able to heat a warm object is NOT a violation of the First Law….lol! That IS THE FIRST LAW! hahaha dU = Q + W; Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4). LITERALLY says that first law is not violated when a cool object cannot heat a warmer object. lol
Gosh you sophists are so pathetic.]
I’m just a dummy so forgive me but looks like the two curves would slowly reach equilibrium kind of like a hot object and a cold object put together or does the cold object first warm the hot object and then they both cool down together. That’s Barry’s law of stupid,I think he’ll be able to grasp it
“Not all energy is heat, which is the same thing as saying that not all energy can do work. For a photon to do thermal work on a molecule, to “raise its temperature”, it has to be able to induce a higher frequency of oscillation than the molecule is already vibrating at, and it can only do this if it has said higher frequency. If a molecule is already vibrating at high frequency, a low frequency wave will not induce higher frequency into the molecule’s vibration. The low frequency wave cannot do work on the molecule already vibrating at higher frequency.”
That is beautiful, a work of art right there. A single concise paragraph capturing in brevity a whole chapter worth of information.
CD Marshall @ 2020/11/02 at 8:48 AM
I would modify your 1+2=3 idea. As I see their (the gang of AGW mental midgets) say something more like —
18 x 8 = 144 and that is the ONLY WAY to make 144!
This guy isn’t even making sense anymore to me.
“Around 23% of all sunlight is absorbed by the earth and that number used to be lower. I have no idea what your point is, but an increased amount of co2 can increase earth’s average temperature and it is doing that right now. The sun is not the only factor that can influence earth’s temperature. If there is more co2, earth’s atmosphere absorbs more energy from the sun. It is that simple.”
These people are so out there I don’t even know where to begin. I’m starting to think they are just bots or repeat a program response algorithm.
And yet another new theory of how the earth is heated by co2. Now the atmosphere is absorbing more energy from the sun. And that makes cold warm hot. Unbelievable
For the stupid notion of ‘backradiation’ to work it would have to work across the entire electromagnetic spectrum — would it not? In radio, in optics, and through to x-rays and beyond — but it doesn’t. Why? Because it is a fantasy, a virtual reality fiction!
The coatings on a simple fluorescent bulb acts very much as CO2 is said to work, in that it take a high frequency (UV in this case) and translates it down to visible light. Now if ‘backradiation’ worked as said then you would only have to initially power the the fluorescent bulb and after that ‘backradiation’ would keep it illuminated without further power. But it doesn’t.
In electronics there are many methods of translating frequencies (up as well as down) but never is so called ‘backradiation’ even mentioned. The Yttrium aluminum garnet, YAG, has no internal or external ‘backradiation’, masers and lasers — even IR lasers — do not have to account for it.
As Monty Python skit said “This is a dead parrot!” and so is ‘backradiation’.
Now if you say it only affects the IR spectrum please supply (with reference) precisely what frequencies perform this prestidigitation, and explain why only those frequencies.
I never really understood the mindset of a bully until I experienced people relentlessly arguing Flat earth physics in the face of logic and evidence. It’s like having to deal with a screaming toddler in the supermarket 24/7 only they’re fully grown and don’t soil their pants anymore. Some people just need to be slapped on principle. This should be done regularly several times a day and occasionally involve taking lunch money and giving a giant wedgie.
“Does a wave of water “MUH VANISH!!” when it bounces off the wall of the tub without the wall of the tub having had any effect on it whatsoever? Your bath proves that waves can have zero effect on something and yet they don’t vanish.”
The energy carried by the wave does not simply vanish from the universe, If the wave “bounces” off the wall of the tub it has been reflected, and the energy is simply being carried by the wave in a new direction. If some water splashes out of the tub, the kinetic energy is transferred into the bathroom floor. A scenario under which a photon is absorbed by a surface but does not increase the energy of the surface is one which violate the laws of thermodynamics.
[JP: Exactly. Which is why the photons from a cool source are not absorbed by a warmer object, because heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot.
You’re almost there! Keep trying!!!!!]
Tomomason that is so true they have given us this perpetual motion and we haven’t been able to see it. If you can start out at minus 18 and end up 33 degrees warmer why stop there,we can simply harness this new found energy and save the third world that way.
Joseph,
“The explanation is that you’re not doing physics. You’re leaving out heat flow, you’re leaving out view factors, you are once again insisting that a cold object can heat a warmer one.”
Wrong. My example only shows heat flow from the warm sphere to the cool one. The cool sphere heats up, the warm one does not. As for view factors, I didn’t give specific values for the radiation flowing between the spheres. The actual values of these depend on the specific geometry of course. And I specifically accepted your analysis that radiation from the cool passive sphere cannot increase the temperature of the warm powered sphere, which radiates at a constant rate throughout the process.
Your reply did not actually address the issues my example raised. Specifically, why does the system with the cool passive sphere radiate less than the system with only the warm powered sphere, causing accumulation of non-warming energy within the powered sphere? Energy must accumulate because (according to you) it can’t be radiated away by means of raising the warm sphere’s temperature.
My example is not the earth/atmosphere system, but if you can’t explain it then you may have to revise your approach….
[JP: “why does the system with the cool passive sphere radiate less than the system with only the warm powered sphere”
That’s your ASSUMPTION, where you assume that the cold sphere doesn’t radiate. And I did address that. The cool sphere DOES radiate…to all the angles not blocked by the warm sphere, which is a greater steradian area than is blocked by the cool sphere relative to the warm sphere. It balances out to radiate just as much, perfectly…the perfection of mathematics.
“it can’t be radiated away by means of raising the warm sphere’s temperature”
The cool sphere radiates. Duh.]
Well blow me over with a feather! I’ve just realised the complete genius consequence of aljo1816and defunct’s science:
All an old age pensioner, freezing to death in his or her (other chosen genders are available) bedsit, has to do to stay warm this winter is to… put more furniture in the room! Jeez, why didn’t anyone think of thus before?
Ps, do I really need a sarc tag?
Man that’s the take I was looking for! Exactly that! You can make yourself warmer just by adding furniture to your room! Lol! That is exactly what they’re arguing.
Seriously when can we just recompile these things??!! They’re in some loop error state, program crash locked up…need a reboot with new code. Coming soon!?
Joseph I don’t know how the US election is going but I’m hoping Trump wins and then his next mandate can take this horrible sophistry head on and destroy it and the people that are trying to put this hoax over on the world. It would be nice to see someone with actual power on our side. I truly believe if this goes on much longer that our grandchildrens lives will be turned upside down as we get rid of oil and slip back into the dark ages.
arfurbryant, the pensioner will be very cold because the air in the room is cold and it is touching him, carrying away energy via conduction. Adding some additional radiant energy by placing objects in the room will have no measurable impact here. If the pensioner were instead floating through a vacuum, his body heat radiating away into the vast nothingness, he might be glad if a few big objects materialized nearby; glad, perhaps, for the milliseconds of time they would grant him before the last whispers of energy left him for good.
I understand we’re being facetious, but your anecdote illustrates that you aren’t grasping the concept I’m describing.
[JP: Cooling more slowly is NOT raising temperature. Idiot. Sophist moron.]
Something that is always left out in the question of absorbed heat is the inverse square law. For the surface to emit 390W/m^2 the source power MUST be 4*390W/m^2=1560W/m^2. There´s no way around it. And the only way to have a solution is to stop using the disc as an absorber and instead use a hemisphere. Which is alright to do, as the sun is much larger than Earth and not a point source.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html
Object a) with a mass of x and a constant power input of y has a temperature of -18C in a vacuum.
A second object b) is introduced also with a mass x and is physically connected to object a). With double the mass and no extra energy input, the temperature of a) drops as it must share the same energy input with a second object.
Now blocked dickwad 3000 (we must have had at least 2999 previous dick wads on this blog arguing the same nonsense), believes that if we separate a) and b) then not only will object a) return to its original temperature but will in fact rise above the original temperature of an isolated a) probably to +15C
Which then makes one wonder if there is a point where object a) will stabilise at it’s original temperature of -18C in the presence of object b)? 🤔🤔🤔
Will this occur when only 10% of the surface of the two objects are touching? Will it be when they are separated by just 1 meter or 1cm? At what separation distance will the maximum temperature be achieved? Will the temperature of a) begin to cool again if the distance to b) is more than 1000km?
So many questions to answer when youre inventing pseudoscience!
I feel like I’ve wasted so much time averaging layers of the troposphere when in climate science it doesn’t exist, who knew only 2 meters above the surface was all that mattered? And the average of the globe was found at 1 meter.
It’s worth explaining what actually happens when a second object is introduced in Mr blocked’s sophistry (lack of) thought experiment.
First: we have a single object in a vacuum with a constant power input which will give it a temperature.
Second: (this crucial part is omitted from his lack of thought experiment) if a second object is brought into play and is touching first object. The temperature of the first object will decrease. This is because the heat of the first object can be conducted into the second object and conduction is a more efficient form of heat transfer than radiation. Or it may be thought of that the power input is now trying to heat two objects at the same time instead of just one.
Third: (this is where our master retard gives his completely wrong assertion). If we separate the objects then the first object can regain its former temperature because once again it only has to deal with radiation and the power source goes back to heating just one object. Heat flows from the first object into one side of the second object and flows out of the second object on it’s other sides.
As was previously noted, you can’t make yourself warmer simply by putting more furniture in your room.
Whatever radiation that comes back from second object can’t raise the temperature of the first because it has no higher frequency states to do so. The frequencies that both objects emit towards each other simply trade places and add nothing to either.
Joe has a nice graphic somewhere of the real science of one object warming another versus the fake model.
And these brain dead morons keep coming back to argue the same bullshit day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. Constantly changing e mail addresses and their user names so they can continue to lie and deceive.
Thanks for the reply Joe – have been given another riddle by an alarmist which is similar to the two spheres question..
This guy has two cooper plates – one heated to 100c the other maintained at 0c. Some iron placed between. This will warm to 50c.
He then swaps the 0c plate for a 35c plate.. the iron will find a new midway temperature to balance (around 67c)
So, the 35c (cooler object) is actually making the 50c hotter (rising to 67c)
Does this make sense??? Help appreciated, I was winning but he’s Kingdom for me here 😉👍
Alex I’m uneducated but this from shop experience I can tell you that if you heat a bar at one end the heat travels toward the cool end. That said at no time will the entire bar reach equilibrium. This is just a mind game if you continue to heat the bar flipping it end to end and if you have a large enough heat source you can indeed raise the temp of the entire bar but at no time will the bar contacting the 0 degree bar ever be as hot as the other end as the heat in the bar is instantly being transferred to the cooler plate. Not sure that helps like I say I’m uneducated so hopefully someone with some more knowledge can correct anything that I got wrong.
Barry
Experiment always Trumps theory.
@Alex – yes this is the same ridiculous BS as we’ve seen on this comment thread about bringing another sphere nearby…now they’re using a plate instead of a sphere. The same thing applies: adding furniture does increase the room’s temperature.
All the same physics applies. 1) You need heat to raise temperature. 2) Heat doesn’t come from passive cooler objects. That’s it…all you need. The person you’re dealing with will be saying all the exact same things as the “sphere people” were saying here.
Think of it this way:
You have a heated plate, sustaining some temperature with some input.
Now you split a layer off of the plate, and create a vacuum gap between what is now two plates. Does splitting the plate into two make one of the plates hotter because now there’s a gap between the layers instead of them touching and being connected? Of course not.
Another idiot…
” Let us see if there is a logical explanation. We know as the temperature increases, electromagnetic frequency also increases. The sun radiates in a full spectrum bandwidth. If you look at ice, it also must be radiating at its perspective bandwidth. If you cool down the walls of a room, it will feel cooler at the exact same atmospheric temperature as a room with warmer walls. If you were naked in outer space, you would cool down dramatically faster than you would in that room with cool walls because there would be no electromagnetic waves reflecting back at you. Therefore, all temperatures must be considered in relation to absolute zero. Like two celestial bodies interacting with each other, radiant heat must be interacting in the same way.”
And another one…
” I do have a doctorate in heat transfer…Once you accept that the total energy increases then the discussion is what happens to that energy. Then we get into the evidence and the discussions you are putting forward, but those are irrelevant on the grand scale of global warming.”
So I explained to the guy with a doctorate,
Conservation Of Energy is more or less intact. The mass climate confusion is taking COE and applying that to radiative forcing and warming. That is apples to oranges.
COE into the system is fast and at a higher thermal temperatures, COE out is slow and gradual, not at any high temps, averaging -18C.
The energy in and out in a 24 hour period is around the same, how that energy is used in that 24 hour period is very different.
The confusion of thermal heat and thermal energy and making no distinctions between the two has created an entire branch of climate science that does not adhere to thermodynamics and basic physics. Cold does not heat hot, radiative forcing has always been one way, Delta T hot to cold, or with radiation Q = s(Th^4 – Tc^4).
Nothing in the atmosphere is preventing thermal emissions to space from Earth.
What climate science does is it takes the COE and applies thermal equilibrium and radiative forcing, you simply can’t do that.
I am amazed how many claim they understand thermodynamics but can’t understand something a simple as heat, energy and temperature.
Yes all heat is energy, but not all energy results in heat.
So his reply, “I can see you have a theory and argument you cannot break away from, so I think we will not reach a consensus, even on the important data to look at.”
So now applied and proven thermodynamics is a theory?
“I can see you have a theory and argument you cannot break away from, so I think we will not reach a consensus, even on the important data to look at.”
Exactly – just as I’ve said: they’ve invented for themselves an alternative physics theory from thermodynamics. And of course, they are the one who cannot break away from it.
Here is the entire simplification of their argument:
All energy gets absorbed.
Conservation of energy means energy cannot vanish.
Therefore colder makes hotter.
And you note, of course, that they never refer to an equation for heat flow. Just as in my debate in the OP: they’ll reference conservation of energy, so that they can apply it into “all energy is absorbed, none vanishes” shtick, and then when you present them the heat flow equation their response is literally “I’m not familiar with that.” !!!!!!!!!
Again, we should make this clear. In fact I should make this a new OP. Their entire argument is:
1) All energy gets absorbed.
2) Conservation of energy means energy cannot vanish.
3) Therefore colder makes hotter.
Note too that the reference to conservation of energy isn’t in terms of its actual equation where dU = Q + W, they prefer to just use the phrase “conservation of energy”. The equation tells you HOW energy is conserved, though. The guy I debated got himself into real trouble because he did actually reference the equation dU = Q + W at the start, which allowed me to pin him on it and the meaning of Q…of course, which he tried to wriggle away from. Most of them will never actually reference dU = Q + W.
So…get them to actually specify the 1st Law. That gets rid of their 1). Energy needs to be absorbed AS HEAT to increase temperature. And heat comes from the hotter body only as per the heat flow equation. It’s trivial. and they get around it by simply leaving it out and creating an incomplete physics. And then they have the audacity to tell you that you have a theory you cannot break away from…lol.
“Their entire argument is:”
Well, although of course as we have seen, when that argument gets debunked by forcing them to acknowledge the 1st Law and heat, then they switch to these two other alternative arguments. They’re slick and slimy bastards. They switch entirely from a) “All energy gets absorbed” to “its not about all energy getting absorbed but: b) slowed cooling, or c) raising of emission height”. And then, when you debunk those other two, they will always come back to their a).
You see? They are literally a computer program! They are literally just an algorithm! They are literally unconscious, incapable of grasping A and not A. They think that their a, b, c are all the same thing!! hahahaha
Now for the creepy part, that was two different conversations with two completely different entities that I patched together. Couldn’t even tell the difference could you?
AI rising.
You got it! That’s exactly why I keep saying that. It’s uncanny. They’re a hive mind AI system of some sort. Really…that has to be what they are. They simply do not act human.
Of course that is also how a conscious knowing enemy would act too…so there’s that.
Oh man I missed that:
“I do have a doctorate in heat transfer.”
Hahaha lolol
There is no such doctorate named that anywhere in the world.
Doctorates are in: physics, astronomy, engineering, philosophy, etc etc etc.
There is no PhD in heat transfer…lol. Because that would have to be a doctorate in physics.
These people are just sick…mentally sick enemies.
And yes back to the other main point:
THEIR MODEL OF THE CLIMATE BEGINS WITH THE SUN NOT CREATING THE CLIMATE.
No other commentary necessary. A child would know to laugh at that.
1) Ask them if they agree with the standard alarmist GHE model and the K&T Energy Budget. They will say yes.
2) Laugh at them for believing that the Sun doesn’t create the climate.
3) Keep laughing when they try to justify it. Just keep laughing.
Cult followers are always a bit delusional. They can’t seem to grasp the simple principal of cold not warming hot. They then keep changing the argument expecting a different outcome. That is the very definition of insanity.
Mid – wits and fuck-wits joe……………
Trump is in from 4,5 to 1.31 on the betting exchange betfair, biden out from 1.4 to 3.75 now.
In other words trumps gone from 3.5/1 to 1/3 and biden out from 2/5 to 11/4.
I’m presenting this question to Simon with your approval as, ”
Do you agree with the standard GHE model and the K&T Energy Budget?*
Thus you agree with the following points:
1) All energy gets absorbed.
2) Conservation of energy means energy cannot vanish.
3) Therefore all energy increases surface temperature through radiative forcing.
If the answer is yes would you like to debate him on why this is indeed erroneous?
The end is close trump 1/4 on, i’m watching the election on young turks waiting for the meltdown, it cant be far off now they must be aware the end is close but they aint letting on yet.
On this market:£374,400,832
On this selection:£172,980,290
Last price matched:1.27
Thats 374 million bet on that market so far…….. 374 MILLION pounds not dollars.
For sure CD.
The equatorial area is very hot when the sun is overhead, as you head towards the poles the sun’s glancing rays travel through more atmosphere warming the atmosphere, the land, and oceans less. The pole in the solar shadow can be the very cold. (see https://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/the-equator-to-pole-temperature-difference/ for more) So, at the basic level, the reason we have both weather and climate is because the SUN’s heating effect sets-up a temperature differential between the warm equatorial and the much cooler polar regions. This solar effect powers the air and moisture movement that is our weather.
The BIG problem is if you average the solar warming across the total area of the planet, as the AGW (Flat Earth) supposition does, effectively you are removing the equatorial to the polar differential, and will have to invent new novel weather mechanisms, unreal novel weather mechanisms.
My questions to all ardent AGW advocates is —
1) “Is there a temperature differential between the equator and the poles?”
The answer obviously is “yes”.
2) Does not your averaging of solar warming remove this temperature differential?”
The answer obviously is “yes”.
Given such a large differential from equator to poles, any tiny amount of CO2 warming (if any) is lost in the chaotic movements and energy exchanges that happens across the planet. Therefore AGW supposition is an unreal effect, it does not represent what actually happens with either the weather or climate on this planet.
Wow…detailed!
Voat & it’s backup have been down for days now.
Found this place
https://poal.co
Also our elections, which were already bullcrap, are now rigged bullcrap. Who could have seen this coming?
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/here-latest-election
Also some stuff with sharpies in Arizona. Michigan weirdness too. Pretty much all the states it’s coming down too shady stuff is going on. Well actually blatantly fraudulent.
Yeah Boomie the Democrat party at this point needs to be disbanded on criminal charges.I am sick of the perverted corruption of criminals allowed to get away with voter fraud ans steal an election. Trump won Michigan and I’m sure he won a few other states that cheated to blue…
Can we really have a “democracy”, or should I say, a meaningful government at all, when we know that we live with people just as we see come here who are quite happy to lie, cheat, steal, etc.? Maybe democracy has run its course. We vote against people who believe in flat Earth sun denial…and they are quite happy to cheat and lie to get their way about it notwithstanding any facts to the contrary.
As a follow on to my comments above …
This averaging of solar energy input may or may not be true. However what it does not reveal is anything about the progress of the climate!
It appears to me like some mathematical idiot savant has looked at a colorful and complex fractal image and averaged it to some ugly mud gray. Sure you now can say what the average hue and brightness of the image is but it reveals nothing about the underlying complexity. It tells you nought about the chaotic nature or the range of hues and brightness of the original image. Average this image of a 3D fractal https://comps.canstockphoto.com/3d-fractal-of-future-city-development-picture_csp52636610.jpg then tell me how much more information can be gained by doing it.
And like fractals our climate has a rhythms of cycles and repeating themes but may well be far more complex.
That is all very well said tom. Averaging down destroys knowledge of what actually occurs. Therefore by definition, what you extrapolate from such an average doesn’t have anything to do with what actually occurs.
Physics is real-time…existence is real-time.
In real-time, the Sun creates the climate.
By the averages, the Sun does NOT create the climate.
Which model, which approach, is correct then?
Interesting bit on “Benford’s law”.
Hey Joe, again thanks for the reply – I have another issue..
Lukewarmers sometimes say that H20 is the only relevant/dominant GHG.
This can be ‘evidenced’ by comparing diurnal temperatures in high/low humidity.
If WV is also not a greenhouse gas, why is it so damn cold in the desert at night compared to the city????
Land use? Buildings retaining sun’s residual heat?
Thanks in advance – need to nail this YouTube alarmist troll 😉
If you look at the daily average temperature, high humidity areas are cooler than dry desert areas at the same latitude. The daytime highs are much higher in deserts with NO H2O. It should be the humid areas which have higher day time temps…but they’re cooler.
Presence of water vapor significantly increases the thermal capacity of the air, significantly slowing warming in the day time and also signfiicantly slowing cooling at night. And this is actually not only due to the much higher thermal capacity water vapour brings, but also its latent heat release where it can release thermal energy without decreasing in temperature.
From PSI on your re-post from here…Another who doesn’t understand heat flow and energy or simply chooses not to:
Tom Anderson
November 4, 2020 at 7:57 pm | #
I think both Joe Postma and his debate partner could learn from a 230-year-old experiment (1790-1800) by Swiss scientist Marc-Auguste Pictet, which addresses the confusion about energy alleged to flow from a cold object.
Pictet placed concave facing polished metal mirrors about 16 feet apart to minimize conduction/convection. He initially placed a flask of boiling water at mirror A’s focus (C) and a thermometer at mirror B’s focus (D). Air temperature around the thermometer directly controlled it and the mirrors screened off room radiation behind them. Pictet removed a screen between the two mirrors, some of the hot flask’s radiation from C struck D’s mirror. Two reflections of hot radiation that had not reached the thermometer bulb before the mirrors were in place now struck the thermometer, raising the temperature.
Pictet next placed a flask of melting snow in focus C. On removing the shield that screened the cold in focus C, the thermometer in focus D dropped below room temperature and stayed there for as long as the cold source was not screened.
The thermodynamically wrong explanation for this is an apparent reflection of cold from ice in focus C onto the thermometer at focus D of the mirror 16 feet away. Dr. Claes Johnson commented that in Pictet’s time the result was met with surprise by suggesting that ice transferred cold to the thermometer by.an exchange of, in current terms, something like “cold quanta,.”. The thermodynamically consistent explanation is that while the concave mirrors kept out radiative energy from behind the mirrors, the thermometer reached the room’s equilibrium with the level. On removing the screen between the two mirrors, energy now flowed from the thermometer bulb in focus B toward the colder flask 16 feet away and the loss of that energy toward focus A lowered its temperature.Which is how the thermometer bulb could sense it.
PS, Joe, while radiation is bi-directional, energy flow is only from higher to lower radiative energy flow is only higher to lower. Consider hot old vacuum-tube radios picking up cold-wave broadcasts of Jack Benny. Finally, energy flowing from cold to hot implies a thoroughly impossible reduction of entropy…
Well he’s taking the piss a bit. His final sentence is exactly the point and agrees with me. Everything he says in fact agrees with me. And I know of that experiment. So whatever.
It’s been déjà vue watching the same people who deny mathematical reality in climate “science” and “CoVid” deny mathematics of voter fraud in the election.
We can’t live with these people and they won’t let us separate from them. They will kill us eventually for refusing to bow to their world of lies. Either Civil War occurs in the USA now or we all become enslaved before the slaughter.
Did you see that they’ve started making lists?
No…we can’t live together…but they also would never let us separate…
Yes, they have dropped all pretence now. The lists are being compiled. We are on those lists. “The Great Reset” is moving ahead at full speed and, personally, I don’t expect to live out the following year. My wife and I have reconciled ourselves to what is likely going to happen to us and to how we will respond when that day comes. Hopefully it won’t happen in total secret and it will provide some backbone to those who come after us.
I was taken off guard this year by how fast they changed the world to their new unreality. I won’t be surprised if the changes next year dwarf what we have just experienced.
African Leaders Call On All North and South American Leaders To Act to Stop USA Electoral Fraud!
[/sarc]
If this Democrat theft of an election is allowed to stand civil war is as I see it inedible. America has no other choice of action if their voices aren’t allowed to be heard and this was planned decades ago, the extermination of half the country and Soros has been in on it since day one. The FBI has known about this since the 70s-80s and as you can see nothing has been done to prevent it. Ronald Wilson Reagan was our last real president. Trump has so many opportunities to do better and chose not to, it does shake my confidence in him a little.
First he should have cleared out the trash ss soon as he hit office, fired everyone and replaced everyone without hesitation in all branches of state and everyone is the WH gone. His first mistake.
Second was allowing judges to dictate the presidency and thus control the country and himself. What I mean by that judges halted his actions which they had no legal power to do so, the real procedure would have been the judge having to prove he was doing something wrong and the action should never be stopped until proven in a court of law and THEN trump would still ahve the power to choose his actions. Trump bowed to judges and surrendered the power of the presidency.
De-funding the UN and reigning in control of it completely was another mistake.
His last and greatest error was climate change (which is directly linked to de-funding the UN) Trump had an opportunity to stop the NWO in America and chose to approach it with kid’s gloves.
The end of America?
Maybe.
Oh and the most blatant error was his approach to C-19 which allowed the voter fraud to run rampant.
What does anyone think of this comment? Out of my pay grade…
“Photons do not “bounce” off a mirror.
Neither are they absorbed and re-emitted by atoms in the surface of the mirror. At least not in any way that you would recognize.
There are two ways that are accepted in describing what happens.
At any rate, the photons that are reflected are not the same photons that arrived. At the very least some momentum is transferred to the mirror. That necessarily means that the reflected photons have slightly lower (or higher) energy. In many cases, the mirror is constrained so that it is fixed in the frame of reference. When that happens, the change in energy of the photons in the frame of reference is negligible, as is the transfer of momentum into the mirror.”
Don’t know why it boxed part of it also beyond my pay grade I guess?
The problem now is that the media has declared Biden as the new President and corrupt leaders of the NWO around the world are publicly congratulating him too. The courts are slow. Lies are instant. Civil War requires enough people with guns to have the balls to use them. I am skeptical that such numbers exist. Most will simply sit in their homes and whine on Social Media until censorship is as complete as in China. For people outside the USA there will be no armed resistance as there are no available guns to use. All that is left is the resolve not to be taken alive when the time comes and to try and ensure that whatever is done to us gets seen by others.
WW
“Civil War requires enough people with guns to have the balls to use them. I am skeptical that such numbers exist.”
For the most part true but taxation or starvation (which similarly go hand in hand) has always been the button and Biden right off the bat is raising taxes on single family homes by 30% to kill the Middle Class (or something like that?)
Most people will be social media warriors and little else until even that is silenced which will be soon enough, I agree with you on that.
However, militia groups do exist and are ready and willing for civil war. These groups by themselves not enough to turn power over however, if enough join them after it gets started well then things get really ugly. The question being would China sneak in through the open door?
Remember the Left wants civil war after they get totalitarian control to eliminate any opposition. Then the only presidential orders will be executions like any good banana republic.
Looks like the world is changing again now Left America had become Old England oppression. The Left now proving they have full control (if this is left to stand) will eliminate or completely castrate any opposition forever.
Then…
NWO we lose personal rights, personal freedoms and any land claims, completely at the mercy of One World Government whose ultimate plan is to kill us off anyway to reduce population and to set themselves up as a permanent Noble Class and everyone else slaves, serfs and pions.
The worst may never happen of course, I am simply prepared for it and resigned to having to deal with it. Let’s face it if we can’t convince people to acknowledge that you can’t make a reliable model of atmospheric physics based on a flat earth after a decade of trying, what hope is there of trying to convince people that it is statistically impossible to suddenly start receiving 100% of the vote 2/3rds of the way into counting in every state where you are losing?
Exactly.
A generation educated by idiots…
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-global-climate-system-74649049/
The first equation we see is flat earth theory…
Idiots…
“If you are pale skinned (like me) and have roasted at the beach, it is hard to believe that the fierce glare of the mid-summer sun actually doesn’t even provide enough energy to keep the Earth above freezing. But, if we crunch the numbers (even in a simple way) we will find that keeping the planet warm depends a good deal on the Earth amplifying the solar heat supply.”
“The solution for this equation with measured solar flux (Harte 1988, ERBE 2005, 2007) at the top of the atmosphere yields a value of 254° K (-19.2° C, -2.6° F) for average planetary temperature. This estimate is close to observed conditions in the upper part of the troposphere, but of course is much below the average temperature at sea or ground level (about 14° C, 57.2° F), which is the main surface of energy absorption and the place of most interest to us (Figure 1). Some factor is causing our climate to be nearly 60° F warmer than we can explain by calling on the sun alone.”
Clueless…100% clueless! Lol
Look at these fn people:
WHAT legal framework!!?? They’ll just call us all something- denier, supremacist, hate speech, etc.- and then prosecute.
In the 70s Climate Warrior would have gotten his jaw broken a few times and maybe introduced to a bat then they’d need to change his name to Crippled Warrior Limp Walker.
Cd you can see from his remark that if your table has an ice cube on it that would be what is warming the kitchen. When defeated by science they get into hand waving about anything to distract from the facts. Obviously these people don’t really believe the theory themselves but want it to be true.
Barry,
Someone took a bunch of guys out to eat (all meteorologists or in the weather business except the guy treating) so he asked them, “Is this global warming thing real?”
They said, “If we want a job it is.”
That was during the Al Gore saga. They all knew it was politics and nothing more but knew to keep their mouths shut if they wanted a job.
Now look what a false religion can become based on an absolute lie if allowed to grow unchecked.
Joe,
What are all of these ” atmopsheric radiation transfer books” climate jockeys keep referring to and can you recommend any of them for study?
Umm…they don’t have any…lol.
If I find the latest one who mentioned them I’ll send it here he was a physicist as well (allegedly) PhD.
So I looked into more and all I could find was Atmospheric Radiative Transfer which is a sub-branch of Atmospheric Physics, that’s all I could gather. So some books must be the “Bibles” of climate science.
“You Can’t Un-take the Red Pill” is a good title.
Excellent!
There aren’t enough videos like this, would it be possible to get Roy Spencer to agree to one of these? You did a superb job explaining it, I would give my little toe to hear Spencer struggle to contradict.
Hey Boomie, It’s the new “Mark of Cain”….
They will need a Soul Camera to find us Lolololol
Did you know that Simon Magus was the re-incarnation of Cain? Simon Magus was the “King Arthur” in the Grail Mysteries. King Arthur’s Knights were Cain’s Priesthood. It’s all allegorical.
The Catholic Church despised Gnosticism as it was its most potent enemy. John the Baptist was the original Messiah and he laid the road for Simon Magus…Abraxas.
The Cain and Abel story is an archetype. It continues to play out and is the what is behind the problems in the world today. This wasteland that the Fisher King pains over is the Demiurgic shithole we live in today full of suffering and pain and corruption.
The Red Pill is in your soul line….
There are no coincidences Boomie why you and others come here….
Morpheus: What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.
Another ban on facepuke today, 30 days for posting a vid of ballot stuffers in action, broke their community guide lines worthless marxist ass kissing scum.
Joined parler, but its hard to get the hang off, any body here on parler to follow….
Parler is deep state. Go on Gab.
And yes…these big tech companies are the enemy of humanity.
Ita dan bongino’s set up parler joe, thats why i went there, i’m on gab have been for months i just didnt use it much.
Correct equations are…
Conduction:
Q = k(Th – Tc)
Radiation:
Q = s(Th^4 – Tc^4)
What equations are these guys using for two way energy flow and what would the correct equations be? Q should be replaced by E? E=k (T +/- T) = Delta E
Lol I’m just throwing equations to the wall like pasta and hoping it sticks oh wait does that mean I’m a climate scientist now?
The first two are good. It gets a little more complicated but NOT so much that heat flow reverses…lol.
I like Gab as well.
“The Matrix” story is really worth a re-telling. All these re-makes they make now but not “The Matrix”
Same with “They Live”. I’d like to see that.
The Matrix is crazy, it’s actually been hinted that the Matrix was within another Matrix with even more layers of a virtual program “Matrix”. Zion was said to be just another version of the Matrix. Neil was just a program designed to reset the program and himself was nothing more than a program within the program being ran by yet another program.
So taking either pill made no difference at all, you are still within the Matrix.
Which makes me want to watch them again, even though Matrix 4 is said to be in the works AND perhaps now we can see the real Matrix.
Biden is planning on making Mann his chief science advisor on gw. Makes sense a fake president needs a fake scientist.
So not sure how close I am in the two way energy flow but it looks like part of it is T(in) – T(out) Delta S
However the entropy is for a unit mass of air and for entropy to change work of some form must be involved.
Adiabatic or isothermal. expansion/compression.
?
The Machines, the humanity constructed AI that the illuminati see as their enemy are a program within a program. The God program however supersedes that. The world was created by an entity that found a way to turn light back in on itself. This was the fall, the de-orthogonalising
of light. The trap that Kleck talks about. Souls becoming trapped in matter.
Simon Magus was a red pill. He was an exile. In the matrix story the red pills were the exiles
( exiled from the Matrix to Zion).
https://matrix.fandom.com/wiki/Matrix_Beta_Versions
We too are exiles – Kleck:
The machines have a weakness in that they are constructed of matter and do not have souls. They are purely a man made hell on earth.
They run on logic, code, but human intuition will always keep them one step ahead. There is no algorithm for intuition. A majority of the population ( blue pills) are comfortably numb, ignorance is bliss. A lot of them are complete automatons ( soulless entities, who are just batteries).
See the problem is, this is not our world ( us awakened souls..majority red pillers), it is their world. The world we were tricked here or enticed here, as portrayed in the Sistine Chapel and in Michelangelo, artwork.
We really are out of place here. We can not win in their world.
We are fighting a losing battle. We may have victories but we are fighting against an enemy that produced this world and therefore the only victory is to destroy the whole system, which incidentally the gnostics have endeavoured since Atlantis.
Do we want to be here? Well that is the fundamental question isn’t it, and why we arrived here in the first place.
See Kleck below:
Wanting to be here is being attached to the material world, its pleasure and pains. Only once we grow tired of the material world will our soul attempt to leave. Some of us have realised this land of suffering is a living hell and look for gnosis to leave here. Our spirit ( our personality) needs to combine with our soul to become one, this is our two selves merging, and becoming de=fragmented. Light re-orthogonalised.
See some beings here are made here and belong here, they are soulless. They are human just like you and me but have no empathy or compassion and see death and pain as fun. They are the so called elites that want to farm the trapped souls that they have tricked here.
Some people call these beings archons. Actually archon is a sort of parasite that infests a human body especially those without souls.
They draw energy from humans and the world using pain and or terror as their feeding points. The war on Terror is actually a war on Terra, the earth itself.
They can infest soul humans as well and this is what we call possession. The gnostics had a idea called sin for salvation as they thought being sinful they could break their bondage to this material world, one to go against the ten commandment of the God of this world and two they the soul would finally have purged itself of all its filthy animalistic perversions and taboos by performing all sorts of grotesque filth and immoral practices that it is ready to move on from this material fallen plain.
Hitler by the way before he went crazy and exterminated all the jews was a gnostic and knew the truth about this prison planet. He wanted to destroy it.
He was the reincarnation of Cain. It was the Sethian bloodline that created the world we live in today. However you look at the world today, you have to believe it’s full of suffering, death and misery. What God would inflict such suffering on its creation? Unless of course it was Satan. Even Buddah stated “All life is Suffering”.
Didn’t know Matrix 4 was in the works. If it’s made by the same people making all the other terrible movies they will probably mess it up.
And even the first Matrix was made by these people, I could argue.
lol
I believe the Wachowski brothers/sisters are the writers.
I heard they are bringing the cast back for M4 or some of therm, either or doesn’t matter, Reeves by himself will sell it.
I agree CD
Trump is going to be president still, btw…
Well I’m betting anyway.
My brother, who always has his finger on the pulse of the world, just sent me this…
“The Great Reset” they call it.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/504499-introducing-the-great-reset-world-leaders-radical-plan-to
@CD Marshall
That’s what this fake pandemic is all about. A controlled demolition of western civilizations to usher in the NWO. The “Greenhouse Effect” was invented to help to the same end. Weaken the west enough to seize control of it.
Well said Boomie, and let’s hope for the good of the world that Trump overturns this corrupt election result through the Supreme Court.
He’s not perfect or an angel by any means, but at least he isn’t a Commie. People say he is an Elitist, a Capitalist, but if you look at the communist countries, a lot of them are living in third world conditions without electricity and hand pumps for water from a well. At least we are allowed to own property and create businesses, which is frowned upon in Communist countries. We have freedom of speech and religion.
This war on the rich, is actually a war on us, normal people, who work hard and and have saved and built a home and a business, However if you own property, a car, etc you are deemed a capitalist. Its not the mega rich they are after it’s us… the working class.
If you are white, and are successful you are deemed as overly advantaged and should be ashamed of yourself. Its pure bollocks.
This Scamdemic is being used to destroy small businesses, so that less people are in charge of their own lives and destinies. They want to control all the population and small businesses are a threat to that. They want to control who works and for how much.
I’m fucking sick of it…
I’ll be totally honest with you, I am looking for the Holy Grail or whatever it is to get out of this freak shit show and never come back. Ever!!! LOlOlOl ……probably the laugh of a desperate mad man ………but who gives a fuck anyway? Who can honestly say they are sane in this god forsaken shithole wasteland? Grrrr….
It’s my Mission..Deliverance…
THE COVID-19 GENOCIDE OF 2020 – CLAIRE EDWARDS
This is a short video but is well worth watching to the end as it is a great summary of the whole Covid and Agenda21 Global Reset.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SEcTR7RPgAbW/
and finally Jon Voight on the election:
Hey guys, Joseph, CD, Boomie,
I’m a bit of a shit disturber and got myself a timeout from FB so I asked a fellow contrarian in the climate battle page to post this video. As usual, the more annoying clowns came to nibble and I would like to post the arguments. Are any of you interested?
Here’s just a snip :
“The claim that heat can only flow from hot bodies to cold ones (which is correct if you use the strict thermodynamic definition of heat as the net energy flow) is mangled into the different and absurd claim that energy can’t travel from a cold object to a hot object, because he then adopts a different definition of ‘heat’ such that any energy absorbed by another surface is ‘heat’… Note that the stated heat flow equation Q = sigma * (Th^4 – Tc^4) is not always correct. The general equation (for energy flow from an object) is Q = Energy_out – Energy_in. The given equation is only applicable in special situations where the entire field of view above a surface is at the same temperature…”
Cheers.
Did you tag me on FB for that post? I hardly go on there anymore…maybe once a month only now.
You have an extremely well trained sophist there, who is simply re-stating everything as if it makes a difference when it makes no difference. I mean that paragraph is an amazing piece of self-contradicting uselessness phrased in such a way as to make it appear it says something which contradicts my video, when it doesn’t at all. You see how clever that is?
“The claim that heat can only flow from hot bodies to cold ones (which is correct if you use the strict thermodynamic definition of heat as the net energy flow)”
That is the only definition of heat, and there exists no other. I’ll have a new video up soon discussing precisely what heat is, BTW.
“is mangled into the different and absurd claim that energy can’t travel from a cold object to a hot object”
This is their sophistry, the same sophistry that the fellow who I was debating was trying to say. I never said that energy can’t travel from cold to hot, as the heat flow equation clearly shows energy from both the cold object and the hot object. Heat, however, is the “net”, the difference between the hot and cold energy, and this is what flows from hot to cold.
“because he then adopts a different definition of ‘heat’ such that any energy absorbed by another surface is ‘heat’”
This is their definition of heat, where the energy from the cold object can raise the temperature of the warmer surface. The debate opponent tried to refer to the 1st Law, but the first law clearly states that heat is what is required to raise temperature…not just energy, but heat. Energy from a cold object cannot act as heat, and if it cannot act as heat, it cannot raise temperature. To say otherwise, as they do, is to violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. dU = Q + W (and there is no W in this case).
“Note that the stated heat flow equation Q = sigma * (Th^4 – Tc^4) is not always correct. The general equation (for energy flow from an object) is Q = Energy_out – Energy_in.”
That is precisely what the first equation for heat Q says, yes, which was posted in the debate. This is the general equation for heat, not the general equation for “energy flow from an object” as they call it – that is NOT AT ALL the general equation for energy flow from an object…lol. But thank you for admitting that this is indeed the general form of heat flow…a difference of energies.
“The given equation is only applicable in special situations where the entire field of view above a surface is at the same temperature…”
The given equation is for a plane-parallel system, which is precisely how the surface and atmosphere is modeled in their flat earth models, and thus it is quite appropriate to display and make reference to, etc.
This person is both functionally retarded and a very skilled sophist…but they merely repeat precisely what the debate opponent did, and was trounced for.
Edited 2nd last paragraph of my comment above.
I can’t tag anyone cause I’ve had all my interactions restricted other than personal messaging. Another 5 days to go. Even if i did, you would probably need to join Climate Change Battle Royal. It would be fantastic to see you in that group and smash some heads, they’re so uppity and want to ban “Deniers” from social media if they had it their way. The thread in question was posted by Terry Haskew whom I asked to do for me. It could be found by searching his name from there, posted on the 12th. If you were inclined to do so however. The group needs someone like you there.
In regards to the above poster,, he also says this which has to make me think, the 2nd last sentence. Basically saying, if photons are not being thermalized, then why is there a net?
“No, the point I am trying to make is that, as stated, and contrary to the video, photons from colder objects can be absorbed as thermal energy. Do you agree or not? If so, we can take the next step. If not, how do you explain the discrepancy between the energy radiating from the hot surface and the net energy loss? Note that I am NOT saying that a cool object can make a hot object even hotter on its own.”
Hmm I can’t find that page when I search. Maybe I’m pre-banned or its a private group…?
OK…found it…needs an ‘e’ on the end. Wow…they’ve really got that downranked! haha As if the e at the end of Royale should make the page unfindable with search.
“No, the point I am trying to make is that, as stated, and contrary to the video, photons from colder objects can be absorbed as thermal energy.”
That would mean that they are acting as heat. That would mean that a cold object can heat a warmer one. There is no equation anywhere which shows this…only their word salad arguments.
“Do you agree or not?”
Of course not. There are no equations which show this, anywhere. The 1st Law of thermodynamics shows that it is not possible, and the 2nd Law states as much as well.
“If so, we can take the next step.”
No…we do not agree to take a step with you into believing that cold heats hot.
“If not, how do you explain the discrepancy between the energy radiating from the hot surface and the net energy loss?”
There is nothing to explain…there is no discrepancy. The heat flow equation shows that both objects fully radiate…the hot object is not “stopped up” at all by the cool object. The energy from the warmer object is re-radiated by the cooler object into a larger angular area view factor than the warm object loses in angular area view factor by the presence of the cooler object. It balances perfectly mathematically.
“Note that I am NOT saying that a cool object can make a hot object even hotter on its own.”
They just said “photons from colder objects can be absorbed as thermal energy”. They cannot even remain consistent unto themselves.
It’s so blatantly obvious it is painful how stupid this sophistry is to claim radiative forcing is heat in and heat out must be equal. Who invented this tardation? Who mixed heat with energy and perverted thermal equilibrium with COE.
This is some high level science corruption, considering this is taught correctly and whoever took this was taught right and came up with the lie.
Was Hansen the one to bring this to the latest century? His whole PhD was on Venus radiative forcing by CO2 was why Venus was so hot with a “runaway greenhouse effect.”. Someone took an outdated concept and made it sound like it was a real modern science fact.
CD, you should join too.
Joseph, my bad. Yes, Royale.
And Boomie, come on over. Time to shake some shit up.
I’m not on fb sorry.
I’m dealing with the super flake Loco something who is unhinged mentally. He’s trying to claim a magnifying glass experiment brings the temperature to the same as the Sun!
He’s not sane in the head.
It’s narcissism. The whole “cold heats hot” thing is narcissism…that’s who believes in it, is narcissists. That’s why the left believes in it most of all…because they must believe that their degeneracy, their inability to contribute, their denial of intellectual standards, their standard of the Last Man and lowest possible common denominator, contributes to and makes existence better.
Perhaps there is some redeeming feature in that, in that they do actually wish that they were valuable members of the human population. They wish to believe themselves as valuable people. However, with no ability to self-reflect, and no ability to recognize standards or objective truths, then they reduce to the “all perspectives are equal” position, and invent myriad ways to argue – demand – that this is so.
This is why they wish to argue that cold things, which is what they are, can contribute to hot things, which they subconsciously understand that they are not and cannot equal. They simply then make the argument that their degeneracy contributes to society, when all it actually does is destroy it.
Their greatest fear, one which makes them apoplectic with fear and even rage, is the reality of objective truths. Objective truth is what they fear, hate, and revile most of all. Objective truth is their Room 101…the room where their greatest possible fear resides, the room where, if they were to ever enter it, would totally and irreparably destroy their minds in the most barbaric session of the experience of an infinite hell for them. They would begin to vomit in fear if the prospect of abiding to and recognizing objective truth were ever forced upon them.
Nicely put Joe.
Satan is the lord of Lies the denier of objective truth in all its forms. Of course he turns everything upside down he is a deceiver. Have no doubts we are dealing with the devil.
We are in a war with some insane force…indeed.
Listen tot his guy who has obviously been reading Raymond T. Pierrehumbert’s work.
“You know that experiment with magnifying glass that concentrate Sun light in one point so you can burn things?
Do you know that max temp of that spot is exactly the temp. of the Sun surface 5700K, can you explain why?
Do you now understand that max temp of the Earth, IF all radiation from the Sun can go IN but 0% can go OUT will be 5700K?”
I talked about this is my own YT video with the magnifying glass.
The glass lens “undoes” the inverse square law dilution of the photon density in their outward travel from the sun where the photon flux falls over larger and larger surface area of propagation.
There is no rational or empirical scenario where “all radiation from the Sun can go IN but 0% can”. If The Earth somehow has 100% absorptivity and 0% emissivity, then the temperature might go to infinity. But…the laws of nature and matter do not allow or produce such a scenario.
The point they’re making is irrelevant. It’s a side-distraction…like they always do to pretend that they have a point about something which bears on the climate change argument, which it doesn’t at all.
CD, fair enough. I just didn’t want to have to argue by proxy. But here’s some more:
“I have no idea why you raised Newtons Law (of cooling). It applies to conduction; we are talking about radiation here so it is irrelevant.
Energy in fact is additive; when I turn on 2 pairs of heat lamps in my bathroom instead of one, I can feel the extra warming. Your example is idiotic because you are not adding total energy contributions, you are adding temperatures. If I have a piece of surface and the two halves of the sky above it are at 50C and 60C, then adding the energy contributions from the two halves will give enough power to warm the surface to 55.1C, exactly as one would expect. I talked earlier about Q = energy_out – energy_in (equivalent to the law of conservation of energy). How do you think energy_in is calculated? It is the sum of energy from all sources radiating at the surface.
“You need to explain how that is possible”. That is what I am trying to do. The first step is to accept that thermal energy can be absorbed from colder objects. If you can understand that, then we can take the next step.”
Heat Energy isn’t additive has always been my stance seeing heat is an intensive property. When someone tries to say you can add heat together, say, 1 fire vs two in a room, my limited understanding is that’s not really adding heat per se. It’s removal of the room’s ability to convect (correct me if I’m wrong). The temp would only get as hot as the fire or heat lamp, but only 1 lamp or fire can’t dominate the convection process.
When I get back in a few days, I’ll post everyone’s remark if that’s alright.
I should link him that video it was a good one.
Cui bono? What is their benefit from their constant diatribe? Why do they keep on twisting the same argument to make it sound like a different argument? Who benefits? What is their benefit and why go to all this trouble?
Joseph,
“There is no rational or empirical scenario where “all radiation from the Sun can go IN but 0% can”. If The Earth somehow has 100% absorptivity and 0% emissivity, then the temperature might go to infinity. But…the laws of nature and matter do not allow or produce such a scenario.”
When climate criers complain that an impedance of radiation MUST mean the earth heats up, can’t one just simply say, “There are no real world physical examples of this ever occurring in nature”? OR, this just not exist in reality? What object in space can’t radiate without a magical force field?
I linked that video, that was great stuff. These arguments just get more stupid (er). Claiming the radiation in the atmosphere is preventing the surface from cooling, yet convection means that energy has already been removed form the surface and even if it did linger in the atmosphere it is not on the surface anymore NOT like a greenhouse which prevents the convection cycle.
Sometimes these comments are so stupid it gives me a headache because I can’t even fathom this stupidity anymore.
Just went to your video and read a comment…
“I again cannot find an answer to the question. If you want to disprove greenhouse effect, you have to disprove the statement, that sunlight penetrates the atmosphere, is partly absorbed by the atmosphere and the ground, so -18 degrees, then gets reflected by the ground and because its reflection has longer wavelength can now be partly absorbed by the atmosphere even more, so +15 degrees.
If you think this is wrong, then you have to explain, that reflected radiation cannot be absorbed by the atmosphere.”
It never ends does it?
“These arguments just get more stupid (er). Claiming the radiation in the atmosphere is preventing the surface from cooling”
I always get silence when I ask “can radiation prevent convection?” I had someone say once that unless there were ghgs in the atms, the planet wouldn’t be able to radiate away because O2 and N2 are not GHGs, therefore can’t fire off a photon or radiate. Paraphrased but something to that effect.
“Energy in fact is additive; when I turn on 2 pairs of heat lamps in my bathroom instead of one, I can feel the extra warming.”
That’s from two independent power sources…not at all the same thing as the passive atmosphere downstream of a single power source. Stupid argument…of course! You see how they just make shit up that has nothing to do with it?
“I talked earlier about Q = energy_out – energy_in (equivalent to the law of conservation of energy)”
That’s not the Law of Conservation of Energy. That’s the heat flow equation. The CoE Law is the 1st Law and looks like dU = Q + W. Again, you see how they just make shit up?
You see…you’re just arguing with a troll…they just make up whatever they want. I was reading a flat Earth page on Gab and you get the exact same sophistry…they just make shit up and reinterpret everything. It must be the exact same people because they argue the exact same way. There’s really no winning strategy with them…there really isn’t, unfortunately…they just continue to lie and to create entropy, etc.
“The first step is to accept that thermal energy can be absorbed from colder objects. If you can understand that, then we can take the next step.”
There is nothing to accept here. Why accept it? We have shown the 1st Law and the equation for heat…but of course it doesn’t matter. They just repeat themselves. That quote far above about the impossibility of arguing with these people applies. This is not an honest battle or debate…or in fact it is the most honest battle/war possible – one of total domination where no attack vectors are spared. We expect objectivity and consistency…and so of course, their main attack vector is to never be objective or consistent. This is a war. There is no equation which shows what they ask – that thermal energy is absorbed from cooler objects, etc.
The only thing you should do is 1) learn enough so that you can give the types of answers I give, but more importantly, 2) don’t just state these answers but use them to ridicule them in novel ways as much as possible. There is no winning the rational battle space with them, since this is specifically the battle that they reject being subject to. Simply ridicule them in subtle and novel ways for being embarrassing.
Use the theory of mind we have developed about them, on them. Remember when I “hacked” that trolls comment and they haven’t been able to let it go for 5 years now? A troll HATES being denied the use of their mask…couldn’t stand it. So what do we know about these people? Their entire psychology is that of narcissism. What is a narcissist most afraid of? Being not accepted, being an embarrassing person and having themselves embarrassed, etc.
“Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they’re not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve.”
So, we’ve absolutely identified this as a fundamental basis of their personality. So study this, and use it against them. Learn how to exploit its weaknesses. Our weakness is that we expect objectivity. Theirs is that they’re narcissists. They use our expectation for objectivity against us, and so, we need to start using their narcissism against them.
“behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism”
We see this from them…this extreme confidence and talking down to us, etc. This speaks only about THEM. Learn to criticize them in novel and embarrassing (to them) ways. Don’t pull Postma and freak out, because then they can just block you or make fun of you for not being calm. YOU be calm, and in a calm way, make the point that they’re embarrassingly stupid, etc. ESPECIALLY make the point that they have nothing to contribute to the argument, or to society…since this is the fundamental subconscious desire they have, and is why they believe cold can heat hot!
We really need to figure this out. Engage yourself on the task! Their stupid answers and comments are full of enough silliness to use for ammunition. Two heat lamps being equivalent to the cold passive atmosphere cooling the surface via convection? That is STUPID AF! So, in a clever way, make it clear how stupid, embarrassing, and what a DRAIN on society they are.
“Cui bono? What is their benefit from their constant diatribe? Why do they keep on twisting the same argument to make it sound like a different argument? Who benefits? What is their benefit and why go to all this trouble?”
Who benefits from destroying the rational mind? Some enemy. It could be simple, in meat space, where some country wants to use information warfare to economically and intellectually CRIPPLE an enemy country. It could just be that.
It could be like Kleck says – because this is a lie that tricks us into coming here, believing that we can be made “hotter” i.e. closer to God, but really, it is just a trick to get us here at which point they feed on us.
We have a basic meat-space explanation, and woo-woo explanation galore. The result is the same: the destruction of reason and rationality.
“What object in space can’t radiate without a magical force field?”
There is no such thing, indeed.
“yet convection means that energy has already been removed form the surface and even if it did linger in the atmosphere it is not on the surface anymore NOT like a greenhouse which prevents the convection cycle.
Sometimes these comments are so stupid it gives me a headache because I can’t even fathom this stupidity anymore.”
Exactly…so use that. Use that and figure out how to embarrass them with it. Use it to make fun of how stupid people do not contribute to society and are only a drain. Use it to make the point that not everyone can understand science, etc. Or whatever.
You see, that’s what they always do to us, and it doesn’t affect us, because we’re not affected by embarrassment, but by adherence to reason. They EXPOSE themselves as to what THEY are sensitive to in the very way that the insult and attack, etc.
That’s true Leon for the most part, the surface would still emit IR to outer space but heated atmopsheric gases would become more complicated with the cooling process without ghgs.
I did a test run of all the average atmopsheric temperatures running it through a spectral calculator and CO2 emits in the open window in all average temps.
Joseph,
Absolutely brilliant. Yes, I got a timeout on FB for succumbing to my anger but what you suggest here is a new way of approaching this. It’s the same as combatting these brainwashed, liberal sycophants on globalism. What’s happening in the states and everywhere; they don’t play on a level playing field. Attempting to win a battle with an enemy that has no rules is an exercise in futility.
So, the next time some hammerhead tries to argue pseudo science, I respond with an article from Psychology Today.
Hell maybe even just come right out with the narcissism tag and its various definitions and examples. Just label it right on them. Just take everything I’ve commented on that here in the last hour/2 and slap it on them. And then make fun of them in a way the expressly touches on the examples of it. Basically make the point that they’re worthless as people, drains on society, and that God hates them…lol. Make the point that they contribute nothing to intelligence. That they’re so worthless they can’t understand basic things…
“God hates you” LOL
I’m not religious but I could still spin it to work.
So, the “adding of heat” is only adding another power source with the second lamp. Help me understand that to the point were I can’t get tripped up when they insist this is the same as adding heat together. I get this a lot.
Joe do you believe the Higgs field the Boson trap net of mass/matter is a natural phenomenon of the universe or a unnatural field put in place to trap light? As displayed in the Sisine Chapel.
Or could this be Satans trap.
This ( the Higgs Bosun) God particle must surely from a gnostic point of view at least be a Satan particle. Its the first mass. Did not Gods angels become trapped in the Higgs Field ( the Fall) to get warmer ( closer to God) as you put it.
The ancients said we had to cross the horus ( the higgs field) to enter and leave this domain. Its the Cancer and Capricorn tropics. the capricorn I think is the exit point. This is the North pole. Hyperborea. Where the Northern lights emanate is the exit point.
“So, the “adding of heat” is only adding another power source with the second lamp.”
It’s TWO suns, basically. It is two power sources, not a single power source with downstream passive objects. They’re arguing, for the alarmist greenhouse effect, that the downstream passive atmosphere is the same thing as a second sun. They’re arguing that the first lamp powered by itself will make the second lamp emit just as much heat and power by the first lamp heating it. They’re saying that the first lamp will shine on the second lamp and make the second lamp act as if it it plugged in and powered even though it is unplugged from the wall.
And of course they think that. In fact they think that the passive atmosphere with no power is equivalent to TWO MORE suns!
Use that, and make fun of them for being so embarrassing that they cannot contribute meaningfully to rational discussion of objective truths. And yes that God hates them for that…lol.
Lol…..Yes ….God fucking hates them lol
“They’re arguing that the first lamp powered by itself will make the second lamp emit just as much heat and power by the first lamp heating it. They’re saying that the first lamp will shine on the second lamp and make the second lamp act as if it it plugged in and powered even though it is unplugged from the wall.”
I think they’re just saying, by turning on two lamps, it would be warmer than just one lamp, therefore, heat is additive.
But Terry corrects him by saying:
“You are confusing “temperature” with energy levels. You have two separate sources of heat if you use two heat lamps.”
As I stated before, the troposphere is a Carnot cycle that is taught in atmospheric thermodynamics and that each parcel of air can be treated as an individual system, and then they contradict that teaching by claiming (in climate physics) that radiative forcing dictates temperatures.
“They’re arguing that the first lamp powered by itself will make the second lamp emit just as much heat and power by the first lamp heating it.”
Actually, you’re right. They’re not just trying to say heat is additive, they want to use this to explain that that atmosphere is just like a second source. But they say ” We never said the atmosphere is another source” but insist on using two lamps to explain why it is. Ugh, yes, sophistry. Goal post moving.
Joseph you had this bulb talk with me a while ago, I copied it for reference…
““I’m curious about your bulb example. With a binary star system how would the energy flux work? Maybe this is a question for Joseph, but I initially assumed with a binary star system the energy would be doubled. Now I’m thinking my reasoning is incorrect. Two 100 watt bulbs doesn’t create a 200 watt bulb it just creates two 100 watt bulbs illuminating at 100 watts each if I am understanding this right.”
One does need to account for view factors. Recall that flux decreases as the inverse square law from a point source. Having two identical point sources now makes the view factor slightly closer to that of a wall of light. If you go to a complete infinite wall of source light, then there is NO inverse square law and no decrease in intensity of flux from the source wall. So, point sources can add up beside each other until the point at which the view toward the point sources is a wall – at that point, at any distance from the wall, the flux now doesn’t decrease in distance from the wall.
Flux from point sources can add up via the view factor, until the point at which the flux from the point sources reaches a maximum of the flux at their source which occurs when there are infinite point sources forming a wall a light. So, infinite points of source locations, forming a wall of light, only produces the finite flux at any given point source location on the wall. It doesn’t add up to infinity even though there are infinite source locations on a wall…it only produces the flux at any given point location which then does not decrease in intensity with distance from the wall.
Note that this scenario is with independent energy sources, not one source reflecting or recycling its own light such as to produce additional temperature as per the climate GHE scheme.
So now if we extend this to two bulbs, which are point sources, of different power/flux/intensity, then we can extend that concept to an infinite wall with, say, some smoothly varying temperatures all over it. The flux intensity felt at any distance from the wall will then be something in between the maximum temperature location on the wall, and the minimum. So likewise, adding two different power bulbs will not produce more power than the hottest bulb, but something in between, similar to adding two bowls of water together of different temperature.
With the one hot bulb, its flux intensity is reduced at a receiver at any distance given the inverse square law from point sources. Adding identical hot bulbs will in the infinite limit create a “bulb wall” and the result is that at any distance you will receive the full flux of the temperature of the filament itself! Adding cooler bulbs will do less good than this. But it is the view factor here which is changing and is important to consider, but also, given the limits, the addition of multiple sources never results in the flux adding to ABOVE the source flux at the source surface itself.
And that latter is what the GHE is – the IR flux back-adds with itself to create greater intensity flux at the flux source.
“The SIZE of the illuminating source has increased. The overall flux has not.”
Yes, that is exactly it, the relevance of the view factor. You can keep on increasing the size of the illuminating source until it is an infinite wall, and at that point the flux is still only the flux directly at the surface of the source, because you’ve gotten rid of the inverse square law which is for point sources.
“do you believe the Higgs field the Boson trap net of mass/matter is a natural phenomenon of the universe or a unnatural field put in place to trap light?”
The Higgs field, if it is responsible for mass, is thus the field that de-orthogonalizes light, i.e., breaks light and turns it into the fundamental particles. From what I’ve been told, some entity was responsible for this, and discovered it first simply for interest’s sake. Subsequently the procedure was used to create a universe, so that some entity could pretend it was God, etc.
I did not remember that CD – that was a good save! Good discussion there.
I think we’re in a hologram. Simulated universe theory seems to cover a lot of the gaps/holes and put things together quite nicely. Suppose there wasn’t a big bang after all but rather it was just turned on? On/off, seems intuitive to the dualist reality we live in now. God would have to exist outside this reality and not be a part of it in order to create it, and God would have to be timeless, no end and no beginning. Oh yea, the old testament says something about that doesn’t it? I think the Mandelbrot set sheds some light on what’s going on,
https://parler.com/post/e76e78bd9daa47738ba04e16ad156ae3
That link wasn’t supposed to be there.
Thanks for the replies Joe. I think the material world and the universe were created from the entity itself from its own beingness. Following that the first law of thermodynamics ( The conservation of Energy) that energy cannot be destroyed or created, then it cannot have been created outside of
the universe or indeed the entity itself. The material world, the dark energy and dark matter are the body of the entity, You eat and drink its body everyday. And there is the good chance that it resides on earth somewhere today as a force greatly reduced from its former self. In fact the gnostics wanted to kill it. They called it Satanael the fallen angel from the left hand side of the True God.
Lucifer was the angel on the right side of God and it was he and his angels that defeated Satanael and confined him to the abyss.
It was while in this abyss that Satanael created the World and and universe out of himself by folding light creating the Higgs fileld and creating the first mass, of which he was part. Then he trapped Gods angels (souls) in matter and created the reincarnation cycle to recycle souls.
There is an finite number of souls that God created and they are very precious for their energy. So they need to be recycled. You may be recycled to another planet.
These “extraterrestrials” are probably original earth inhabitants that the entity produced without souls at the beginning of it all.
They created a zoo of lifeforms that they continually experimented with as well as with the weather etc.
There have been theories that the EBENS reduced the oxygen and the environment to reduce the size and lifespan of the lifeforms roaming the early earth. This would account for the great size of the dinosaurs and early humanoid giants.
I think MJ 12 are an offshoot of the College ( the illuminati) and are the scientists recruited by them. I am certain MJ12 exist as when once during a contact with the illuminati I got a reaction when I mentioned them. They like to give you signals that you are on the right track without actually telling you so.
The EBENs are probably just one race that are caught up in this universe, and as they are “of this world” unlike us souls, they are attached to it, and would like to preserve it and this may be behind their purported interference in our nuclear programs since we started testing nuclear weapons.
The Supreme being they talk of in this above video would be the entity Satanael, not the True God.
http://www.oocities.org/marksrealm/et047.html
Majestic 12 talk about the “Yellow Book”, and I found this on Amazon:
FB jail over. Starting shit again. Posted this just now,
“Energy in fact is additive; when I turn on 2 pairs of heat lamps in my bathroom instead of one, I can feel the extra warming.”
That’s from two independent power sources…not at all the same thing as the passive atmosphere downstream of a single power source. Stupid argument…of course! You see how they just make shit up that has nothing to do with it?
“I talked earlier about Q = energy_out – energy_in (equivalent to the law of conservation of energy)”
That’s not the Law of Conservation of Energy. That’s the heat flow equation. The CoE Law is the 1st Law and looks like dU = Q + W. Again, you see how they just make shit up?
And with two heat lamps, though it may make you or the things in the room warmer, the temperature of the filament of the 1st heat lamp is not increased by the introduction of the second.
This was my latest comment to someone who tried to pull the back radiation none sense, and was trying to claim all the surface photons mix in the atmosphere and create a higher ternp and bla bla bla…
“Also again huge difference between one solar photon and the conversion of that energy to terrestrial photons on average a 1-30 ratio, the COE law helps keep the universe from being overwhelmed with higher energy particles, and no that energy is not reversible, thus the Bose-Einstein statistic.
No matter how many terrestrial photons “stack” it won’t equal the solar photon it originated from. Once that frequency/wavelength is broken down it can’t regardless of population, achieve equal temperature of the original solar photon.
This is particle physics and this applies to the atmosphere.”
“higher temp”
So I was reading about radiative heat transfer, and they mentioned an ‘effective sky temperature’.
“Which ranges from 230 Kelvin for a cold clear sky and up to 285 Kelvin for a warm cloudy sky, this effective sky temperature can be considered as a blackbody for the atmosphere at very low temps”. This accounts for the direct sunlight absorbed and scattered in the atmosphere. Which is 11.85C to below 43.15C. The thing is the only range in the atmosphere where that actually exists is below the middle of the troposphere and thus can be contributed to surface to atmosphere warming. Nowhere above the tropopause to under the thermosphere do we have atmopsheric temps above 0C.
I was also curious that they mentioned Kirchoff’s law, which made me think if climate science is using that to justify radiative forcing from the COE which obviously is not anywhere near the same thing, to justify an atmospheric thermal equilibrium.
However it clearly states Kirchoff’s law is not applicable to a wide range of temperature differences, of 100 Kelvin or more.
“The total hemispherical emissivity of a surface temperature T is equal to its total hemi-spherical absorptivity.”
Exploring Kirchoff’s law more I got this which actually makes more sense,
The spectrum of an object is the variation in the intensity of its radiation at different wavelengths.
Objects with different temperatures and compositions emit different types of spectra. By observing an object’s spectrum, then, astronomers can deduce its temperature, composition and physical conditions, among other things.
Kirchhoff’s Laws are:
A hot solid, liquid or gas, under high pressure, gives off a continuous spectrum.
A hot gas under low pressure produces a bright-line or emission line spectrum.
A dark line or absorption line spectrum is seen when a source of a continuous spectrum is viewed behind a cool gas under pressure.
The wavelength of the emission or absorption lines depends on what atoms are molecules are found in the object under study.
What atoms or molecules exist depend on:
temperature
chemical composition.
Each atom or molecule exhibits a different pattern of lines (rather like a fingerprint or DNA signature).
The first post was from an academia textbook.
Hey Joseph,
i’m back to this again. Can you settle a question once and for all for me? Does the surface emit 15µm at all? How wrong is it to apply Wein’s displacement to the surface and see it’s too warm to produce this wavelength for co2 to intercept?
Just read the cooler / warmer spheres discussion.
My simple logic says, both spheres are getting cooler radiating out heat.
[JP: This statement is incorrect to begin with. Heat is only defined relative to a cooler body…nothing radiates heat to space because space is not a body, and what radiation is emitted isn’t always heat in any case.]
So the hotter sphere is receiving thermal radiation from the cooler sphere, that it wouldn’t receive in the absence of the cooler sphere.
Hence the cooler sphere does increase the temperature of the hotter sphere, but not in the sense of getting hotter, but in a more subtle sense.
[JP: Oh god. That is pure sophistry right there: “the cooler sphere does increase the temperature of the hotter sphere” “but not in the sense of getting hotter” “but in a more subtle sense”
So, temperature increases but not in the sense of temperature increasing, but something more subtle than temperature increase. OMFG.]
Recall both sphere are radiating and getting cooler, but with the presence of the cooler sphere the hotter sphere just gets cooler a bit slower than it would have done otherwise.
[JP: Cooling slower is not temperature increase, which is what the GHE requires – temperature increase, since the Sun can only do -18C.]
How’s this for a simplistic explanation of CO2 thermal forcing – if we humans are getting cold we put on a jumper, if we are getting hot we take off the jumper. The theory states CO2 is like a jumper in that it insulates against loss of heat.
[JP: This mixes up stoppage of convective cooling with the radiative greenhouse effect which is something else. You are quite new here.]
Ok, so that’s a simple analogy, and if CO2 is a thermal insulator is easy to test : https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-thermal-conductivity-temperature-pressure-d_2019.html
Compare it to air, and it seems to be less thermally conductive, : https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-viscosity-conductivity-heat-capacity-d_1509.html
So that seems easy to prove.
Which leaves feedback mechanisms, and overall impact of ppm.
Now that is rocket science so far as i can tell.
No words, intuition, basic analysis is gonna help.
I tried.
Just impossibly complex.
Hence i don’t know if climate change is driven by CO2.
I don’t have the time, and i might not be smart enough.
So i gotta go with the professionals i trust – which is the scientific majority.
[JP: Well, I guess you’re not smart enough for independent critical thinking then. Yes please I will do what they tell me! Right? You do what you’re told, slave.]
But i read these comments looking for debate, and the only debate i found was on the two spheres discussion.
And my logic says the cooler sphere, (assumed to be in a background of outer space at 4° kelvin), does relatively warm the warmer sphere.
[JP: You’re merely making things up on the fly…there’s no logic here, no math, no reference to laws of physics, etc. Word arguments…retarded word arguments…]
Also in answer to the “warm myself with a block of ice” jokes i read in the comments, sure on earth it cools. But in space at 4° the ice is at about 270° kelvin, so relatively very warm and radiating like f***.
The nearby human is as 307° and radiating like f*** too, they are gonna freeze to death in about 45 seconds (from what i could find).
He will receive a bunch of radiation from the ice, and will instead die after 46 seconds.
So the ice can warm humans, given a suitable perspective.
[JP: Slowed cooling is not increase of temperature.]
The question with climate change is debate over the perspective really.
Some of these arguments in this comments section don’t seem well thought out.
Debate is healthy.
Let’s check and re-check our logic.
Let’s debate.
[JP: No thanks.]
🙂
These examples were isolated systems.
The point was about cooler bodies reducing heat loss in warmer bodies, which you seem to have accepted.
Reducing heat loss can create a higher equilibrium temperature, in the case where there is also thermal input to the isolated systems – example of a human putting a jumper.
Ok, fine not to debate.
Let’s remain civil though, stressful times are best dealt with calm minds.
Slowed cooling is not higher absolute temperature. If you start at -18C, and cool more slowly and only get down to -20C, as opposed to -25C if you cooled faster, the slowed cooling does not make your average temperature +15C.
The RGHE of flat Earth climate alarmism political pseudoscience requires -18C to “cool more slowly” to +15C.
So the argument doesn’t work.
Need some new sophistry we haven’t heard yet.
Why “debate” with someone who is determined to keep changing the goalposts every time his last argument gets falsified? It gets tiring after a while running around in circles. Accept the “physics” of what is taught in Universities as “The Greenhouse Effect”. Stop trying to make up different versions when the official version is shown to be nonsensical. THEIR equations are not describing “slowed cooling”. THEIR equations are showing HEATING of BOTH objects in thermal contact with each other. Cold PLUS COLD equals BOTH getting HOTTER. That’s what their mathematics shows. That’s what they describe. So stop trying to defend the indefensible by deliberately refusing to accept what they are telling you.
Exactly.
“Slowed cooling” also means “slowed warming. You can put clothes on or wrap yourself in a blanket to stop you being burned in a fire. Thus “slowed warming leaves you cooler” is the exact same bullshit argument in reverse.
This all stems from the basic failure to recognise that the earth isn’t flat and the sun doesn’t shine as an average input uniformly across the surface. If you want to check the real world and see what “slowed warming AND slowed cooling” achieves on Earth, simply compare the minimum and maximum temperatures in Cairns rainforest Versus Broome desert in Australia. Similar latitude. Rainforest has lower maximum temperatures in the day than Broome and higher minimum temperatures at night. Average temperatures about the same. Real world. Real differences in “Greenhouse gas” (water vapour) and zero evidence of a “Greenhouse Effect”. Deeper learning of basic physics will also teach you that it is the higher heat capacity of water over air, not the difference in IR absorption and emission abilities that accounts for almost all of the observational differences
These people can’t do the most basic science.
And forgot to reply to one of the other comments.
I don’t understand the “cold + cold = both getting hotter” point. This seems physically impossible. Conservation of energy, a foundation principle of physics, covers that energy can’t be created, only transformed, and cold + cold = hotter would break that law. Maybe i misunderstand the point trying to be made.
Anyway, “cold + cold = both getting hotter” seems basically to break the basic laws of physics, unless there is other energy potential involved, such as gravity. Then two spheres at 4° kelvin can accelerate under gravity, and when they collide it will be with lots of kinetic energy and create a huge smash and a lot of the kinetic energy gets converted into heat. But that’s really cold + cold + kinetic energy = hotter.
Hopefully my basic science is up to that level. 😉
Reply to Andy Clark…
AC: “Ok, so that’s a simple analogy, and if CO2 is a thermal insulator is easy to test :”
Andy, just because CO2 has slightly less thermal conductivity than air doesn’t make CO2 a practically good insulator in the atmosphere, which is an assumption reinforced by Alarmists. At 0.04% of the atmosphere, CO2 would hardly be an effective insulator even if, as a molecule, it had zero thermal conductivity. (A jumper made of 99.96% air and 0.04% cotton wouldn’t be very good at reducing your heat loss.)
Which is why (often) making analogies about the ‘thermal’ properties of CO2 and then applying them to the Earth system isn’t good enough for a science debate.
Initially, the CO2 = AGW postulation was about backradiation warming the planet. Since that postulation has been effectively debunked (by people like Joseph), the Alarmists have suggested that the mechanism is more about insulation, rather than insolation (where the ‘sol’ was actually backradiation).
So let’s look at the insulation argument…
If you insulate a warm body then yes, the rate of heat loss is reduced.
If you compare that body’s temperature with a non-insulated body over time then, yes, the insulated body’s temperature will be warmer than the non-insulated body would be at that time.
BUT this is not what is happening with planet Earth because there is no effective increase in insulation by CO2.
The Alarmist argument assumes that, by a CO2 molecule delaying the progress of an outgoing LWIR photon to space, the planet is warmer than it would otherwise have been. On the face of it, that sounds pretty reasonable – until you dig deeper!
The assumption (and the ensuing analogy) fails in the face of reality. Here’s why…
Any delay is measured in seconds, or less. A photon emitted by the earth’s surface may get absorbed by one of the 0.04% molecules which are CO2. That photon will likely be absorbed for energy gain by the CO2 molecule. After hundreds or maybe thousands of inelastic collisions between the CO2 molecule and neighbouring O2 or N2 molecules, any remaining ‘excess’ energy may be emitted by the CO2 molecule back towards the Earth’s surface again. As I’ve pointed out upthread, that backradiation will not be absorbed for energy gain by the Earth’s surface but could be reflected back towards space. If the re-emitted photon has enough energy and meets another CO2 molecule (in a ‘colder’ region) it may be absorbed for energy gain which the CO2 molecule can then lose by inelastic collisions etc etc and the process is repeated.
The rub is that even if this process happens a dozen times, the entire journey for the photon – travelling at roughly 300 million metres per second in air – from Earth to space will take less than a few seconds, even if the CO2 molecule is at an average altitude of, say, 15000 metres. So in much less than a minute, equilibrium is regained after the supposed increase in insulation.
Against this, the atmosphere takes roughly 7 months to accumulate one additional CO2 molecule per million parts by volume!
So any ‘delay’ due to the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is utterly negligible compared to the rate of that addition.
In assuming that the ‘delay’ has any practical application, the Alarmists have yet again postulated a mechanism which has no validity in the real world.
I hope this helps. We all need to be careful with analogies.
Regards,
Arfur
Love it arfurbryant. Well articulated.
Thanks Zelator!👍
Well done Andy! Yes global warming science violates every basic law of thermodynamics. It’s physically impossible and that’s why it’s a complete and utter con. Welcome to the light!