I would like to draw your attention to an excellent discussion and real-world example of how practical experimental science debunks the postulated notions of radiant fluxes and temperatures adding together as is envisioned at the very basis of climate science in its falsely-named and non-existent “greenhouse effect”.
In the video below, scan to time index 22:00 where Tim Dodd mentions cooling with turbopump exhaust:
To quote The Everyday Astronaut:
TD: “Film cooling can take a few forms, either by injecting additional fuel inside the combustion chamber along the walls to keep those areas cooler, by pumping cooler exhaust down along the nozzle, or both. We’ve touched on the gas-generator exhaust before in my video about Raptor engines, but the exhaust from a gas-generator or pre-burner is relatively cool since it needs to be a low enough temperature for the turbine to be able to survive being subject to it.
“It’s just super-weird to think that you can take hot exhaust, like one-thousand Celsius, mix it with hotter exhaust, like around twenty-five hundred Celsius, and actually end up somewhere between the two temperatures. My dumb brain tends to think that if you add those two together it’s the sum of those two numbers and not the average.
“I guess it’s a good thing that I’m not a rocket engineer. But, hey, I guess I’m proof that it’s never too late to start learning thermodynamics.”
Well said, Tim…well said. You know, though…you could be a climate scientist without having to learn thermodynamics!
In climate science, what Tim Dodd points out is thermodynamically impossible, and would make rocketry as we know it today totally impossible, is established as the very basis of the field of study! That is, the cooler exhaust energy is cycled back into the surface to make the surface hotter than the already-hotter surface! In climate science, temperatures are added together, rather than averaged, or differenced.
Climate science is flat Earth theory. No hyperbole. Literally.
Why is climate science founded upon adding temperatures together, rather than averaging (or differencing) them as is done in real-world rocketry (and anywhere else in thermodynamics for that matter)? If you haven’t encountered this before, be ready to be shocked:
Climate science begins its study of the Earth’s climate at the position that the Sun does not create Earth’s climate. That leads to another question: Why does climate science start at the position that the Sun does not create Earth’s climate, and how did it get there?
Climate science got into that position because it averages the solar input over the entire surface area of the Earth, rather than only over the hemisphere that sunlight actually falls upon. Climate science also utilizes a flat plane as representing the entire Earth in order to perform this average. When you dilute the power of sunlight over time and space it never actually occurs upon (the entire terrestrial surface at once as an input), then you reduce the heating power of sunshine by a factor of four, 4! This works out to a heating potential of -18C, at which point one is “forced” to wonder: if solar power can only heat things to -18C, then how are there temperatures higher than -18C?
Climate science solves that problem by ADDING the exhaust energy from an initial heating at -18C, back into itself – it adds temperatures together. Climate science back-adds the cooler temperature of the atmosphere in to the warmer temperature of the surface to create a hotter temperature for the surface, rather than arriving at an averaged temperature. In short, climate science thinks that the climate creates itself by adding temperatures together, just as Tim Dodd points out is not how thermodynamics works from the practical applications of rocket science.
Of course climate science can get away with this pseudoscience because it has no practical product that anyone uses in the real world, anywhere. In engineering, especially thermodynamic engineering, your design and your theory has to work; people’s lives actually do depend upon it. Of course climate science claims that human lives depend upon the field of climate science…but they have no practical demonstration of this claim, they just say that, and scare you about it. The utility of climate science is not in its thermodynamics, which it cannot demonstrate, but rather is in its political power.
In any case, there you have it: rocket science debunks climate alarm, global warming, and basically the entire field of climate science. Not that we needed rocket science to do this for us as anyone intelligent enough can comprehend that flat Earth theory where the Sun does not create the climate is a-priori pseudoscience…but nevertheless this is a wonderful practical demonstration of thermodynamic engineering which exposes the fraud of climate science as a field.
As for climate science and how to approach the study of climate, refer to the graphic above: sunshine is not only a -18C heating potential, but is actually upwards of +120C! Sunshine is incredibly hot and powerful, able to generate the climate as we know it. Sunshine is powerful enough to heat through the latent heat phases of H2O and then this latent heat keeps the night-side of the planet much warmer than otherwise. The average surface temperature therefore could never be only -18C. And then add in the fact that the adiabatic gradient requires that the warmest air be found next to the surface, and any expected average must be at altitude, and then it becomes perfectly clear and justified that -18C could never be found at the surface.
Why is the Earth’s surface not -18C?
- Because Earth is heated by sunshine to much higher than -18C
- Because sunshine fills the latent heat sink at both the ice-water and water-vapor transitions, and this keeps the night side and the poles much warmer than otherwise as this heat comes back out when sufficient solar power is not present
- Because the adiabatic gradient requires that the expected average of -18C may only be found at the average of the atmosphere, not the extremity of the atmosphere closest to the surface
The answer to the above question is definitely not that the temperature of the colder atmosphere adds with the temperature of the warmer surface to create an even warmer temperature!
Climate of Sophistry 
Added a bit more text to the bottom…in case for anyone who read this right away.
I think you called bosonic vs fermionic phenomenon.
How’s that work again?
A very wise lady I know has this to say:
My standard comment on flat earth boards (and I’ve been banned from a few)…
Does light travel in a straight line, going on forever?
Usually get a yes response.
Then why can’t I get in an airplane over Kansas in the middle of the night and not see the sun over Europe?
[[Climate science solves that problem by ADDING the exhaust energy from an initial heating at -18C, back into itself – it adds temperatures together. Climate science back-adds the cooler temperature of the atmosphere in to the warmer temperature of the surface to create a hotter temperature for the surface, rather than arriving at an averaged temperature.]]
Even fifth graders know the difference between temperature and heat. You have to take heat capacity into account when putting materials of different temperatures together, and there is no way that a colder material can raise the temperature of a hotter material, because the underlying physics is all based on the need for entropy increase for a process to happen spontaneously. This is one of the many ways that the U.N. IPCC’s version of climate science is upside-down and backwards, because only the Sun’s 5500C photons heat the Earth’s surface, and the photons from Earth’s surface are in the range -50C to +50C, so they can’t raise its temperature higher than the Sun did. Meanwhile the atmosphere just cools it, not reheats it with its own heat.
The bottom line is that the Sun and the Earth’s surface are Planck black body radiators, which absorb and emit at all wavelengths, and indeed, Planck black body radiation is defined as that containing the largest amount of entropy for a given energy. The IPCC pretends that there is no such thing as entorpy to get its absurd conclusions about atmospheric CO2 causing global warming, and maybe worse, water vapor. The IPCC has hijacked atmospheric science to create the bloomin’ onion of lies called climate science, which is really just leftist environmentalism with a fake science coating.Watch how long it takes for them to claim that the atmosphere is also a Planck black body radiator, with up/down arrows coming out of thin air.
Read my cool Quora article on the role of entropy in the Earth’s climate:
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-increase-of-entropy-affect-the-environment/answer/TL-Winslow
When you get serious, take my free cool online Climate Science 101 course, the first to really straighten out all the IPCC lies and found climate science on pure sweet physics. Too bad, instead of teaching it in every school and university, they work to shadow-ban it because it would destroy their lifetime income, worse than in the days of Galileo.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
I love the idea that if I add cold milk to hot tea then my cup will boil.
O/t:
“Stop treating it [i.e. AGW…human-caused global warming/climate change] as a worthy opponent. Do not ascribe reasonableness to the other side. It is not reasonable, not true, not even plausible.” ~ Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (31 March 2021. Zoom call Clintel Foundation)
Excellent video on terrain theory there. It’s amazing just how much of modern science and medicine is corrupt
We live in a world of bs created for profit. How nice.
And how many people use the S in science for stupid. Where I can’t argue thermodynamics with a physicist w/o he claiming I’m not supporting physics for I don’t agree backradiation heats a temperature above its original temperature.
How he “worded” that question really threw me off. it was tricky and I couldn’t circumvent it.
This is the part I didn’t understand enough to argue it by how he worded it. Yes he is a warmest, I read another post where he supports Mann’s work so he’s a well educated con man.
ME:
““The Earth emits a cooler temperature than the Sun provides“
HIM:
That‘s just wrong. There is a network of pyrgeometers on the ground falsifying your statement by measurement. The surface emits much hotter temperature (in terms of radiation) as the sun provides. Question: how?
{That’s definitely a lie but I couldn’t prove it.}
ME:
“Secondly, the entire planet conserves energy globally, the daily emissions is the surplus of that energy after billions of years of energy saturation.“
HIM:
This is physically impossible. The 2nd law forbids it. It requires balance, no surplus out of beforehand accumulation.
ME:
“So where is this claimed extra energy coming from then since it is not coming from ghgs?”
HIM:
That I asked YOU. You are simly giving back the question. The surface emits more than the entire system to space. According to YOUR physics this shouldn‘t be. According to measurements it is. YOU must explain this difference, not me. Evasive maneuver of you, again.
ME:
“Something emitting at a 100C does not become 120C with 20% of its energy returned.“
HIM:
Uh? If the 20% weren‘t returned before and if the 100C are caused by a bonafide heat source: YES it does. That again is simple thermodynamics.
ME:
“Stefan’s law: The total energy flux, (total energy emitted by a black body per unit area of surface per second) is proportional to the fourth power of the body’s absolute temperature.“
HIM:
Exactly. And thus the temperature of the surface of earth exceeds the radiation of the sun at the earth. Again the question is: HOW? Your try to complicate something easy does not hide that you have no clue how to answer this simple question.
@ CD
Below refered part is funny. sicnce If there is a relation the relation should be counted in Kelvin, since that has thermodynamica meaning. Adding celcius temperature is retard as default.
ME:
“Something emitting at a 100C does not become 120C with 20% of its energy returned.“
HIM:
Uh? If the 20% weren‘t returned before and if the 100C are caused by a bonafide heat source: YES it does. That again is simple thermodynamics.
There’s 65 like this in that comment.
Half a trillion corals: World-first coral count prompts rethink of extinction risks
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-trillion-corals-world-first-coral-prompts.html
Add this to that as well…
Researchers discover a new coral reef in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef—the first such discovery in 120 years
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-coral-reef-australia-great-barrier.html
And now they want to give this to children,this is criminal.
Joseph Chris A. responded to your quote…and my addition.
“Your comment is incomaptible with the laws of physics. You are doing the same mistakes by just restating errors you made earlier, instead of just doing a calculation as I recommended.
Error 1: “Again as I said, thermodynamics equilibrium would forbid backradition from increasing the temperature.“ The surface IS NOT in themrodynamic equilibrium with the atmosphere.
Error 2: If backradiation doesn‘t lead to a temperature increase, it‘s energy must be reflected, do work or lead to a phase change. Otherwise it would be destroyed. None of the the three possibilities is observed.
Error 3: “If two systems are at the same time in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.” This sentnece is made for an enclosed system without a heat source. We have an open system with a heat source.
You are mixing up the cases of enclosed system equilibrium and equilibrated open state dynamics. Those are two different things.
Error 4: “Sunshine is not only a -18C heating potential,“ DO THE CALCULATION! What is the maximum average temperature of four squaremeters receiving 960W on one of those squaremeters? Completely regardless how you distribute this flux over the entire area? It is -18°C. OR LESS
It is a bit hard to tell who is quoting who when, nevertheless:
“Error 1: “Again as I said, thermodynamics equilibrium would forbid backradition from increasing the temperature.“ The surface IS NOT in themrodynamic equilibrium with the atmosphere.”
The heat flow equation is not limited to thermodynamic equilibrium…was a mistake to say that. Heat flow occurs when there is NOT thermodynamic equilibrium. And so: the colder atmosphere cannot warm the warmer surface; -18C from the sun cannot be amplified by passive radiative exchange to higher temperature. It is NOT backradiation which creates a higher-than -18C surface temperature. The other reasons stated are responsible.
dU = Q = m Cp dT = to raise a temperature, heat is needed;
Q = sT1^4 – sT2^4
“Error 2: If backradiation doesn‘t lead to a temperature increase, it‘s energy must be reflected, do work or lead to a phase change. Otherwise it would be destroyed. None of the the three possibilities is observed.”
Heat flow: Q = sT1^4 – sT2^4: the temperature increases only for the object getting positive Q…this does not mean that the emission from the cooler object was destroyed…it simply does nothing.
“Error 4: “Sunshine is not only a -18C heating potential,“ DO THE CALCULATION! What is the maximum average temperature of four squaremeters receiving 960W on one of those squaremeters? Completely regardless how you distribute this flux over the entire area? It is -18°C. OR LESS”
Stupid question.
Look, the question is what drives the physics, what creates the climate. Treating the sunshine input as -18C is WRONG…simply flat out wrong. Secondly, the surface + atmosphere is the system, not JUST the ground surface. You can’t just characterize everything at the ground surface, as if this is where balance must occur. The system as a whole accords perfectly to -18C…it is indeed exactly that. So why is the bottom of the atmosphere warmer?
1) Because it is heated at much higher temperature than -18C, and thus if the average must be -18C, then the average cannot be found at the surface since the surface is where the heat is initially deposited at much higher than -18C. There’s the rest of the system above the surface, above where heat is deposited…the average therefore must be found in there. If you heat a metal bar at one end, why would you expect the average temperature of the bar to be found at the end you heated it on? Of course the average has to be found down the bar somewhere away from where the initial heating takes place, just like how the average temperature of the atmosphere must be found up in the atmosphere.
2) Given where heat is deposited and therefore where only the highest temperatures must be found, the adiabatic gradient also establishes that the air column must have a distribution in temperature, with therefore the average at altitude.
3) the atmosphere has low emissive power and therefore the lower atmosphere may easily attain higher temperatures than average without actually emitting more energy than can be explained.
Oh…I didn’t finish my thought here:
“dU = Q = m Cp dT = to raise a temperature, heat is needed;
Q = sT1^4 – sT2^4”
Heat, Q, comes from a hotter object. Thus, it is not possible, in any thermodynamic condition, that a colder passive object may radiatively heat (raise the temperature) of a warmer body.
The other explanations/points variously listed are sufficient.
And there is no empirical demonstration, anywhere, from any “laboratory” test, which demonstrates the heating effect he claims. Therefore, the other explanations are better than one which has neither theoretical nor empirical-laboratory support, because the other explanations follow naturally. The problem is his framing of the question, and what he’s willing to accept as answer: i.e., the only thing he will accept is something which has neither empirical nor theoretical support.
Also, if HE was the one to admit that the surface is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, which it of course is not, then -18C cannot be found there in the first place given that -18C assumes thermodynamic equilibrium. Heat is being actively removed by convection from the surface, therefore this is another reason why it’s no problem for the surface to be higher than -18C.
Excellent points on all. Yes he insists the surface/troposphere s not in equilibrium which of course is true.
Excellent point they treat the troposphere and the surface as two different systems, instead of one which must be how they justify the troposphere warming the surface or whatever.
This 960W/4=240W of energy could surely be measured on a square metre array with back radiation shades that only allow sunlight to fall on it…
…or a back radiation detector with sunshades…what wavelength is this stuff again? Seriously, what is it, where is it? Why can’t I measure it?
Hanging on to a faith that’s based on faulty reasoning must be trying, but at least they have clear consciences from not being funded by big oil.
Come to think of it JP, I’ve written an invoice for big oil. Where do I send it?
Joseph you should actually make that a post it is too good of a clear point.
Joe,
A truly excellent video from Dr. Sam Bailey
I have put this straight thru Yout https://yout.com/ to make sure that I have a copy for my records.
Her quote at the end from Antoine Béchamp is very relevant to our current battle with junk science
“Nothing is lost, nothing is created .. all is transformed. Nothing is the prey of death. All is the prey of life.”
@ CDM
“ME:
“Something emitting at a 100C does not become 120C with 20% of its energy returned.“
HIM:
Uh? If the 20% weren‘t returned before and if the 100C are caused by a bonafide heat source: YES it does. That again is simple thermodynamics.”
A beautiful set up and he fell right into the trap.
As MP says
Any real physicist would know that the percentages should be in Kelvin not Celsius.
I was talking to a PhD in meteorology before, a while back on this stupid subject of the power of the Sun (and I say stupid for it shouldn’t even be a subject of argument). I told him I measured 40C on a good Summer day in direct sunlight, and I am nowhere near the tropics to demonstrate to him the power of sunshine.
His reply?
He explained that’s why they used (forgot the name offhand) walls so they can detect the ambient temperature without the Sun.
…I was dumbfounded he didn’t even see the irony in that statement.
HONSETLY will it get to the point that all temperature readings will be done at nighttime? You can’t have the real power of the Sun interfering with our readings.
The trouble with Climate Science is they overlay static averaging equations on a dynamic moving system, and when they don’t line up they alter the system instead of the equations.
Willis Eschenbach won’t let us debate this stuff https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php
from WUWT’s https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/26/modeling-unreality/
so can we do so here?
@ CD Marshall says:
2021/05/26 at 1:16 PM
[△EXTERNAL]
Hi Joe,
I hope you are well. I really enjoyed your heat flow videos and I had a question. I do recall you commenting that alarmist try to claim that the warmer object will absorb energy from the cold object and alarmist will ask where does that energy go?
I vaguely recall your answer said something about an equal amount of construction and destruction occurs.
I have looked through the videos and reread many posts, but I can not find your explanation. Would you mind a quick explanation? Much appreciated.
Hi **,
Well yes, there is an equal amount of constructive and destructive interference in the light waves at that point, and so the energy does nothing…it goes nowhere.
Q = sigma * (T1^4 – T2^4)
When T1 > T2, then the radiation from the T1 term has extra components across all frequencies, plus components at higher frequencies that T2 doesn’t have at all, which cannot be destructively (or constructively) interfered with; all of the other components are interfered with, except for the excess which T1 has and T2 doesn’t. Thus in this case the energy from T1 can do work on the body of T2, agitating its molecules to vibrate more vigorously. However, there is a limit of course. Once the body of T2 has been induced to share the same frequency state as T1, then now all the frequencies are perfectly matching and thus they all equally interfere both constructively and destructively with each other, leaving a balance of zero excess capability of performing the work of heating.
Hope that helps,
Joe
“as a colder body becomes warmer the flux from a nearby hotter body will decrease and that this slows the rate at which the hotter body becomes cooler?”
The flux stays the same, depending on temperature. Refer to the heat flow equation:
Q = sT1^4 – sT2^4
Each term of the S-B Law (s*T^4) is a flux, and only the difference is heat. The difference, as heat, is just the part of the warmer body’s frequencies which can do work…the work of heating, the work of raising temperature. The heat is not what is conserved or what must remain a constant. The flux (input) is what remains a constant, and the other term adjusts itself (raises) until Q = 0 is achieved, until the source energy can no longer perform work because the source energy contends with an equal and opposite energy from the other body. It just means that work can no longer be performed, that heat can no longer occur…not that energy isn’t flowing or doesn’t exist. Of course the other side of the body being heated then emits the energy supplied from the source.
“If this is correct, then it would seem that if Tc (i.e. atmospheric CO2) becomes warmer, then the flux from Th (i.e. the earth) will decrease in accordance with the heat flow equation and with the graph of “Heat Flow between two Planck Curves”.”
Here there is a confusion between flux, and heat. It is the heat, the ability to do work, which is captured as the area between the Planck curves; the area between Planck curves is not the flux of any body, it is only the ability of one body to do work upon another, which is the excess of the warmer body’s energy relative to the cooler. So, the flux of the warm body does not decrease when the cooler body warms – the flux of the warm body only loses its ability to perform work on the cooler (now same temperature) body.
“Doesn’t this mean that the earth will be radiating less thermal energy than would be the case if atmospheric CO2 was not warmer? If the earth is radiating less thermal energy, then it is retaining thermal energy and must be warmer than it would otherwise be. What am I not understanding?”
Hopefully the above answers help.
“Is it because the earth’s thermal radiation to the night sky is not affected by the temperature of CO2 and actually we cannot apply the heat flow equation between the earth and a gas like CO2? Or is it because “heat flow” and thermal radiation are two different things and so the “heat flow” between the earth and the CO2 is reduced, but the thermal radiation of the earth remains constant?”
Ah…yes, you got it here yourself! 😊
“If the heat flow equation does apply between the earth and CO2, and the thermal radiation of the earth is reduced, then are we left with the argument that warmer CO2 does not materially change the thermal radiation of the earth and therefore it’s influence on the earth’s temperature is negligible? In other words, if CO2 has warmed then there is a Radiative Greenhouse Effect (because the earth’s thermal radiation to the night sky is less than what it would be if CO2 had not warmed) but this mechanism is actually different from what is being claimed by the Climate Almarists, and the effect on the earth’s temperature is grossly exaggerated. Please help clarify this.”
I’m not sure I completely follow this summary, but in any case consider this: if greenhouse gases EMIT, whereas non-greenhouse gases do not emit, then doesn’t adding the ability to emit to the atmosphere mean that the atmosphere can now directly lose energy through emission? If something gains the ability to emit, if something is provided a vector by which thermal energy may be emitted and shed, then this can only lead to cooling, not warming. This is the issue of “emissivity” for grey bodies. If a body has low emissive power, emissivity, then it cannot efficiently radiate thermal energy away, and thus it becomes hot; whereas if a body has high emissive power then it does radiate efficiently and thus it stays cool. This example is just to demonstrate that the basic mechanism of greenhouse gas theory is totally logically contradictory, indicating that the concept is false and inconsistent with physics.
I remember you using the word “Resonate”, I think. The back-radiation just resonates.
OK, I’ll debate myself..masdebate, if you will. I’ve just realised Eschenbach posted his downwelling longwave infrared source https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php but not the corresponding (and greater) upwelling one https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php and resulting net https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php
This means, if I know infrared, that the downwelling infrared, in effect, does not exist. It is an ex parrot. But posting such things is verbotten on his thread so I’ll just leave it here.
His entire damn post is about this downwelling as if it has a meaningful contribution to make.
“Thanks Joe, I love your information and appreciate your time.
Yes, I believe that does make sense. There is interference with all but the excess components of T1 until thermal equilibrium. T1 has equal constructive and destructive interference with the common components. T1 does not increase thermal energy as there is no additional heat or work.”
@J Cuttance –
I’ve dealt with this a long time ago…likely with him.
He pretends to think that evidence of increased IR emission from the atmosphere, when the surface is warmer, is evidence of the GHE. This is putting the cart before the horse. OF COURSE the atmosphere is warmer when the surface is warmer, and of course THEN the atmosphere emits more IR. But where is the heating coming from in the first place, to make the higher temperatures? The sun…which they pretend does not exist, or they average out of the analysis.
Makes you wonder what we are up against here. If we need a passport for a vaccine that neither keeps you from getting or passing on the disease the same as us unvaccinated what is it for?
It’s for complete and total control for completely arbitrary reasons. For enslavement.
They have a god-complex, or they think they were chosen by god and are incapable of doing wrong. We are just cattle to them, a resource to be bled and milked. Culled and roughly selectively bred for their purposes.
something like that.
Most of the Elite hate God and the very notion of a core of morals, which religious or not, the morals taught is a standard we still use for humanity. They want to be god (small g for them) for they crave power over people, to rule mankind which is their core desire. Every nefarious ruler was convinced they were the models of altruism even as they committed the most heinous acts against humankind.
Always under the pretense of good intentions.
Fossil fuel industries need to be “culled” or they will kill us all. Cows need to be culled because methane will kill us all. Humans produce 2.3 pounds of CO2 each per day and there are over 7 billion of us…so the cull has begun! At what point does the general dumbass make the connection?
That’s the problem only about 10 % of us see through this thing,the same as agw if you mention it’s all a made up scam the general pop look at you like you just fell from space
Here in Oz the govt put a knee on the neck of Cov early in the piece and shut down int. travel. So it’s a rare event here and when it does rear it’s ugly head like the current 21 cases in Victoria right now the State Govt has gone into a hard lock down for 7 days. My mate is a warmist ( so not a complete moron) and is aware that the jab doesn’t work but he and his wife lined up this week to get that synthetic goop pumped into them!!!? Fearmongering works!
If the ghge is real then the top of your oven makes the bottom of the oven hotter.
Mines been shut off for years now CD we leave the door open to heat the house now that we warmed it up the first time,nice to have perpetual energy
So I’ve been looking into transitions. I found a concise explanation. Higher energy can excite the electron in a solid which can transition to a higher energy level, increase temperature. This is typical of visible light or higher levels of energy not IR.
IR typically at low level energy can not excite an electron in a solid. IR can vibrate the bonds of the molecules however, but is not strong enough to excite an electron and transition the state to a higher energy level.
“When an atom absorbs an UV photon or a photon of visible light, the energy of that photon can excite one of that atom’s electrons to a higher energy level. This movement of an electron from a lower energy level to a higher energy level, or from a higher energy back down to a lower energy level, is known as a transition. In order for a transition to occur, the energy of the photon absorbed must be greater than or equal to the difference in energy between the 222 energy levels. However, once the electron is in the excited, higher energy level, it is in a more unstable position than it was when it was in its relaxed, ground state. As such, the electron will quickly fall back down to the lower energy level—and it doing so, it emits a photon with an energy equal to the difference in energy levels.
However, lower energy radiation in the infrared (IR) region of the spectrum can also produce changes within atoms and molecules. This type of radiation is usually not energetic enough to excite electrons, but it will cause the chemical bonds within molecules to vibrate in different ways. Just as the energy required to excite an electron in a particular atom is fixed, the energy required to change the vibration of a particular chemical bond is also fixed.” -Khan Academy
Finally I can disprove Chris A’s claims. Yay.
@CD, in what way can you finally disprove Chris A’s claims..? Are you referring the photon absorption modes….?
He knows his stuff and is largely on point, but sometimes he talks by saying something which on face value is wrong, but then on clarification his explanation is correct. So a bit of language sophistry from time to time. The only point that still seems in dispute between him and me, is that he eels to claim that a lapse rate cannot exist without convection dynamic. But still working on that point, as I have fairly strong conviction, but not wholly convinced of my position.
What is a little frustrating, is that he seems to keep reverting to a sideline argument thinking I was about to trap him, while I was intent on only explaining/testing the default origin of the Lapse Rate, and that no GHG or convection is required to give rise to a Lapse Rate. Stuff like, “a lapse rate can be warmest at the bottom..but cannot add new energy..”, and “..where does the extra energy come from to allow the surface to emit at a higher level..”.
Anyhow, still working on that angle, and also trying to test my own knowledge on this.
Chris:
No, that‘s not physics. That‘s a statement without context. In no physics ever discovered power in form of radiation can be absorbed by hard matter without consequences to either temperature or state of aggregation. You simply claimed that‘s not the case. Show the law of physics stating this, or an experiment showing this.
ME:
Now you deny quantum mechanics?
Bose-Einstein statistic is proof of that, established in quantum mechanics for decades.
You said you study spectroscopy so you should already be aware of that. As I said before, a greenhouse is proof backradiation does not increase temperature. If it can’t do it in an enclosed environment it can’t do it in a open environment.
Absolutely no experiment has ever proved the greenhouse gas effect. Simply not enough energy in low level IR to increase temperatures to a higher transition.
The simple common sense fact that the surface emits in a spectrum shows it is emitting in different wavelengths under Plank radiation…Different wavelengths, a wider emission of temperature.
Whatever level the electron has been excited to the emissions level of photons will equal. As the transitional stage of that heated object decreases it ejects a photon equal to that energy state.
You keep treating the system like it is static.
Good one. Again, refer to the heat flow equation: the energy from the cool term does nothing…only the excess components of the warmer term can do work because they’re not interfered with.
Funny how climate science fixates on the warming part only.
The part of the Earth being heated by direct sunlight is cooling slower than the part with no sunlight. The cooling and heating are working in transit, they are not isolated. If the Earth is warming it is also cooling, Only the net difference is ever heat. How much net heat exists on the cool side of the planet?
How he worded his question threw me off. I didn’t realize he was describing the average emissions out to space to the hottest part of the heating. That’s deliberate deception.
…Or he had been taught wrong and holds onto to that? What physicist would teach that all energy equals heat?
In order to push global warming they have to deny gravity and the lapse rate and they all do it.
The interference part I really need to understand more about that’s associated with superposition isn’t it?
I though I had it saved somewhere…
Wave Interference:
Wave undergoes phenomena like interference when it meets another wave. Interference definition states that it is a phenomenon in which two waves superpose with each other to form a resultant wave of lower, higher or of same amplitude.
There are two types of wave interference:
Constructive interference
Destructive interference
Constructive interference is a type of interference in which two interfering waves have a displacement in the same direction.
Destructive Interference”
Destructive interference takes place when waves come together in such a manner that they completely cancel each other out. When two waves destructively interfere, they must have the same amplitude in opposite directions.
Now what exactly does “cancel each other out” mean?
It makes their effect, or presence, NULL. I am sure an alarmist sophist would try to interpret a reference to deconstructive interference as a claim that energy is destroyed or some retarded thing like that…of course that’s not what we would ever say or claim, and, deconstructive interference was not made up by us – it is a real thing and it really does “cancel out” a wave’s ability to do work.
Thanks Joe
Like the reference to the Iron bar and averages.
This guy says the speech from one person generates 100 ergs of energy. That is 1 ten millionth of a watt. So if 400 million people talk at once they could light a 40w lamp.
‘Using static averaging to analyze a dynamic fluid system’. That’s like using a slide rule to explain music!
I have a stalker named “Friend of Science” who comes on here to try and do a “gotcha” to me on YT guess I’m making an impact on his troll activism or he’s just a sore loser?
Everyone say hi to “friend of science” who isn’t really that much of a friend to science but say hi anyway. Come in and post, let’s see what you got.
My last posts sent Chris into complete denial, as expected.
Which thread (link) CD
Jopo it may be hard to find but it’s on here, CD Marshall. Tread with caution, it’s over 351 comments and counting. He’s a pro spinner, this one.
Chris is being misleading on purpose now.
ME:
I never said it does nothing but you keep saying that. It is not enough excite the electron to a higher temperature.
HIM:
No. Im well aware of the distinction. IR that wouldn‘t excite anything would simply be not absorbed. But it is absorbed. The power of atmospheric backradiation is absorbed to nearly 100%. No wonder, because Kirchhoff‘s law claims exactly this at the frequencies we look at. To state that this absorotption does nothing is pure belief and there are no laws of physics stating this to be possible.
If the atmosphere was not IR-active, what would emit the balancing radiation to space?
He also said that constructive/destructive interference is something I made up. Yet he claims to have a PhD is Spectroscopy.
If the atmosphere was non-emissive in IR it would be waaaay hotter: F = e s T^4; low e makes higher T for a given F. Basic physics contradicts his claim.
And again: Q = s T1^4 – s T2^4, therefore the IR from the colder atmosphere is quite specifically NOT absorbed. Again, basic physics.
I just cannot believe the people who think the Sun cannot heat Earth’s surfaces to above -18°C without greenhouse gases have any intelligence at all !
Their stupidity is so profound and obvious in the multitude of inane arguments they mount to defend their stupidity !
A simple analysis of the data from the Moon shows that the Sun is capable of heating an exposed surface to ~120°C – simple FACT.
The Lunar surfaces only get cold when deprived of the Solar radiation for extended periods that only ever happen close to the poles on Earth during winter – surely confirmation that the Solar radiation is far more powerful than these idiots “allow” !
Another example of their idiocy occurs in near Earth orbit space – which clowns including DR Roy claim is “cold”.
From – https://www.nasa.gov/content/cooling-system-keeps-space-station-safe-productive
“The station orbits the Earth in about 92 minutes at an altitude of around 260 statute miles. It experiences large fluctuations in temperatures. They range from around 200 degrees Fahrenheit when the station is exposed to the sun to about 200 below zero over the night side of the planet. Heat also is generated by various equipment on board.”
This is full of sophist bullshit BUT it negates ALL of the flat Earther arguments applied by idiotic “climate scientists”.
Just how does the ISS heat up ~200°F from minus ~200°F in 46 minutes with Solar radiation only capable of minus 18°C or minus 7.8°F ?
Just how is the ISS capable of withstanding the stresses and strain which surely must accompany such wild temperature fluctuations ?
Just how is it possible the ISS encounters such low radiation emissions when it is in orbit around Earth at an altitude of 266 miles above the Earth’s radiating emissions of a measured ~239 W/m2 ?
Surely these emissions guarantee a radiative environment of no lower than minus 7.8°F ? After the ISS is tiny compared to Earth and close to it !
You simply cannot trust anything these idiotic liars say !
That neurotic troll “Fiend of Science” who I have bested so many times he is now, like a real troll, trying t discredit me on YT by coming here and talking crap at YT. What a hilarious loser with all the earmarks of an activist. He can’t talk the science so tries to use dirt instead. Such a spineless little neurotic weasel.
I have a perverted stalker now.
https://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2021/05/28/doctor-_1820_this-whole-pandemic-was-about-the-vaccine_1920_.aspx
To all true believers in “settle science” remind them that there’s no such thing as “The science”!
The scientific method is a process of continual refinement. Belief should not be part of the paradigm, verifiable observations and measurements are what science depends upon.
It is far better said by Dr. Jacob Bronowski (from his 1970’s BBC broadcast ‘Ascent of Man’) …
“Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken.”
[my bold]
If all energy equals heat then ice cubes are heating each other with IR in the 10.7 micron range.
LOL that weasel Friend of Science is sending Chris A my comments from here like that matters. Chris can come read them himself. He thinks he’s “exposing me”
Gawd what a nutter. I use the same username on all sites, yeah he’s exposing me that’s why I use the same name and don’t hide like he does. These trolls need serious therapy.
I invited him to post here and show us what he knows about science.
Come on let’s see what you got Friend of Science,
You are cordially invited to post.
These people are truly sick…lol. Oh yah they’re real sleuths aren’t they…because they can find people using their names on different sites…when they themselves have to wear different masks every site they visit…lol.
This guy is a pathologically liar. Even though he has been shown many times you are published he keeps saying you are not. He knows he’s lying and he doesn’t even care.
I’m in dozens of papers by now. All can be found via the NASA ADS…abstract and data service. My software is hosted by the NASA FITS image support office. My last first-author paper I solved a problem in observational astronomy that has existed since the very origin of image-based astronomy…over a hundred year old problem noone has ever solved before.
Speaking of peer review….check out Tony Heller’s latest
Explain to me how this:
ME:
“Theory of infra red absorption:
IR radiation does not have enough energy to induce electronic transitions as seen with UV. Absorption of IR is restricted to compounds with small energy differences in the possible vibrational and rotational states.”
“However, lower energy radiation in the infrared (IR) region of the spectrum can also produce changes within atoms and molecules. This type of radiation is usually not energetic enough to excite electrons, but it will cause the chemical bonds within molecules to vibrate in different ways.”
Becomes that:
HIM:
You are both times wrong.
1) This is exactly what the text says. It literally says that IR excites vibrational motion of bonds and rotation if possible. If not possible, it is just not absorbed.
2) Kirchhoff’s law: What is a good emitter at certain frequencies is also a good absorber at those very frequencies.
Conclusion from 1): You are unable to understand undergraduate physics texts. Proof: You present them as something to support your claims while they are stating the opposite of what you state.
Conclusion from 2): You don’t know the basic laws of the topic you speak about. The surface of earth is a quite good absorber of the frequencies radiated by the GHGs. Which means it absorbs the flux coming down from the atmosphere. Which means there are vibrations excited. Which means… ever
Gosh that’s excellent. I’ve had multiple journals now tell me simply they’re not qualified to “vet” my AMS paper and the spherical model! These academics are braindead.
every physicist know what that means
…which means to him back radiation heats the planet.
All they can pretend is that all energy is heat. That is all his argument is, no different than we’ve encountered a thousand times.
The heat flow equation always applies: not all energy can raise temperature, not all energy is heat, only the excess of the hotter relative to the cooler can perform the work of heating, equal components cancel each other out and perform no work i.e. no temperature increase.
According to these guys ice cube photons will be absorbed by the surface and heat it.
And again, also: backradiation heating implies that it is responsible for the temperature gradient in the atmosphere with altitude…so it’s a hijack. The temperature gradient of course comes from the adiabatic physics, and there is no modulation away from this gradient due to radiation; the rate of the lapse rate therefore is empirical disproof of the GHE. Actual release of heat from latent heat in water affects the gradient, but that’s it…because that’s actual heat! Radiation from the atmosphere is not heat for itself.
Exactly CD.
Weird thing is he’s probably 97% right it’s just that 3% that kills it.
The other thing he said which is wrong is all ghgs emit in the radiation that they are heated at. Which is pure bs and he knowns it. That’s not the COE in a diatomic molecule. Seems like he kept switching from micro to macro according to which one best suited his outcome. I ran CO2 on a spectral calculator with every ambient temperature and it all came out emitting in the open window.
According to him it neve remits in the open window.
I found it…
What the ghgs of a parcel take in as absorbed radiation is transferred into KE of all gas molecules of the parcel as well as the other way around KE of other gases can be transferred to radiation from ghgs. In the end the radiation of a parcel just depends on the temperature of the parcel and thats it.
CO2 does not emit in the atmospheric window. It emittance has the same frequencies as its absorbance and by definition they are not in the atmospheric window. If we are looking at the bulk, that is exactly true as a consequence of kirchhoffs law of radiation. Thus ghgs absorb at the very same frequencies they emit. What you mean might be a „single molecule“ approach, by which a single molecule doesn‘t need to absorb very exactly the same wavelength it emits?
Still it is true for the bulk that absorption and emission bands are identical. Therefore there is no radiation emitted by ghgs in the atmospheric window.”
Although he did word his response tricky.
“Kirchhoff’s law only applies if you’re in LTE. Outside of LTE, it
won’t . If you’re in LTE but not true TE (like the daytime atmosphere), your incoming
radiation won’t necessarily match the Planck curve for the temperature you’re at. This
means that – even though Kirchoff’s law works – you can heat or cool radiatively due to
the different spectral region that you’re absorbing in compared to the Planck curve at
your ambient temperature. So don’t be fooled into thinking that LTE means you aren’t
heating or cooling – it only means that the distributions of your molecules’ thermal states
(electronic, vibrational, rotational, kinetic) are well characterized by the appropriate
Boltzmann distribution for a single temperature, and thus have the expected absorptivity
and emissivity for that temperature.”
GHGs would break LTE in a parcel of air, or at least have the potential to break LTE.
“Over a Barrel is a short political documentary about the work of Vivian Krause, and the questions she raises regarding U.S foundations funding activism against the Canadian oil and gas industry. The supposed goal of this “Tar Sands Campaign”, funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and other U.S. charitable foundations, is to fight pipeline approvals in Canada and stop Canadian oil from reaching overseas markets. We focus on the negative consequences this has had on the Alberta economy, First Nations communities and the rising threat of western separatism.”
30 min documentary here
The Rockefellers don’t have American interest in mind either trust me
The Rockefeller Foundation went full green energy.
Permanent Record, Edward Snowden, Macmillan 2019, p232
When civil society groups like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) tried to challenge the NSA’s activities in ordinary, open federal courts, a curious thing happened…leaks to journalists didn’t count…the court…could only recognise the information the government officially confirmed as being publically known.
This invocation of classification meant that neither the ACLU, nor anyone else, could ever establish standing to raise a legal challenge in open court. To my disgust, in February 2013 the Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 to accept the government’s reasoning…without even considering the legality of the NSA’s activities.
These lies are the same for the pandemic going on. Has anyone shown the virus exists? No. No pictures, no nothing. It’s all fake leftist rhetoric. Joseph, saw similarities as well right? How do you think the communists got the idea of this “virus” (never been proven)?
I got into an argument someone yesterday. He claimed climate change is proven because Venus’ temperature is very hot. I laughed at him. Apparently elementary schools don’t teach the basics of gravitational compression of the atmosphere and the heat that results. I told him that actually gravity and geothermal heat affect our climate more than any CO2 from humans. He was shocked and told me I was wrong. I just laughed, haha. Next time, do you know how I can go into more detail on this process, or was I actually wrong here?
Ya Boomie seen this before they seem a little more concerned about the money than the environment. But I guess if you follow the money you get to the truth. It’s really hard to believe how evil a lot of these people really are,it’s like they really don’t care about even their own families
Caz Gerald
4 days ago
Imagine a molecule that is greatly beneficial to our number one food source – now imagine a well organized and powerful movement turning that molecule into enemy number one.
Interview with Dr Roy on Friends of Science
(Paraphrase) “in meteorology we use fluid dynamics in our modelling but the climate is different it’s about averages”
Can someone explain to me how the physics is different between the two to the point where one can ignore the other?
IF 99+ % of a dry atmosphere does NOT absorb IR radiation (i.e. these molecules are Not “greenhouse gases”) then atmospheric heating by IR is IRRELEVANT !
“Interview with Dr Roy on Friends of Science
(Paraphrase) “in meteorology we use fluid dynamics in our modelling but the climate is different it’s about averages”
Can someone explain to me how the physics is different between the two to the point where one can ignore the other?”
Simple – Roy Spencer is simply wrong !
Off topic BUT has anyone seen this ?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/117-healthcare-workers-file-lawsuit-against-hospital-for-requiring-covid-19-vaccine_3836644.html?mktids=2207899d9549e56979c0b425833f85c0&est=pi%2Bhf3xSoK4YAiqmbQ8UoNa0nvZc8LsDJnMENONPiJIGbBzt0itGA0rx8e8%3D
Click to access nurses-v-methodist-hospital-houston-texas-covid-vaccine-mandate.pdf
Has anyone seen this ?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/117-healthcare-workers-file-lawsuit-against-hospital-for-requiring-covid-19-vaccine_3836644.html?mktids=2207899d9549e56979c0b425833f85c0&est=pi%2Bhf3xSoK4YAiqmbQ8UoNa0nvZc8LsDJnMENONPiJIGbBzt0itGA0rx8e8%3D
Click to access nurses-v-methodist-hospital-houston-texas-covid-vaccine-mandate.pdf
Half the US military refused the vaccine last I heard.
Don’t think for a moment that all of this is over. In Canada the federal MPs have voted 327 to 1 to postpone any election until the pandemic is over !?!??!!?!?!?!?
Anyone care to guess when the pandemic will be over ?
https://globalnews.ca/news/7893274/covid-canada-election-motion/
(((“””Pandemic*”””))))
When the fake alien invasion starts
Unbelievable insanity! This is not going to end well.
Just looked at the sweltering heat of Northern Africa this month (June) and compared it every other June to 1980 and found very disturbing facts.
It hasn’t changed. Cycles. Heat waves born in Africa have moved all the way through to Siberia for over 6 decades.
Oh one thing I did learn, the heat waves can move through Northern Europe instead of Siberia periodically.
What I do for a living:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/joaa/042/0030
TLDR boomie?
It’s all fake and ghey?
You think military AI is being trained on this fake GHE climate change argument?
Yea, I think there are or will be bots arguing with us online.
I have read they use bots. I read a comment that a climate scientist was tired of arguing so he made a bot to do it for him. Which is why they never learn and always have another answer. AI can be so good now it’s hard to tell.
Are some people brain dead or bot headed?
lol, they don’t call them NPCs for nothing.
My brother sent me an update they have irrefutable evidence China voted for Biden. When presented to the supreme court I have no doubt it will be dismissed.
I should say China voted Biden in, literally. In the 5 swing states the machines were hacked.
Biden is controlled by the international elite(Bankers, financers, and heads of mega-corps). The international elite are, atm, hurting the USA for the benefit of China, because that’s what benefits them.
The international elite are lead by a group that historically had no land of their own. Their religion instills a god complex in them, and cast dispersions on the out-group, to the point where they think they can do no wrong to us. because they are god’s chosen people, and we are their cattle.
Our elite, a foreign parasitic elite, chose Biden.
Nice comment boomie.
Funny thing is that they let us pay for our own destruction, the sceme to pay of influencers in countries WW to get things going won’t cost them a Dime.
What if these idiots come up with a way to “cleanse CO2” out of the atmosphere and inadvertently depletes our ozone layer creating the very global warming they sought to fix even though it wasn’t broken.
Some scheme or another, their purpose is to destroy the biological apparatus on Earth.
But earth will be such a wonderful place once all life is removed,I can’t understand what’s wrong with these evil minds that think a barren rock will be better than life as we know it. Humans aren’t perfect but if you think of all the strides we have made in the last one hundred years one can hardly imagine how great a place could be created in the next hundred if only we could move forward instead of back.
Ozone is formed out of O2, not out of CO2. Carbon capture tech captures carbon, not CO2.
Riddle me this Batman.
A meteorologist uses a hot sun and cold air to make short term predictions…and gets it mostly right.
A climatologist uses a cold sun and hot air to make long term predictions…and never gets it right.
Which one is the charlatan?
Good one!
“Ozone is formed out of O2, not out of CO2. Carbon capture tech captures carbon, not CO2.”
That’s why I said inadvertently. Do you really think they stop at carbon? The thing is like a fish net, sometimes you capture what you don’t intend. How long before someone says we need to get rid of CH4, CFCs…air pollution.
Good intentions almost always go wrong and nothing is perfect or fool proof, especially if fools are the ones using them.
The ozone layer is of thermodynamic interest – correct me if I’m wrong…a large part of the sun’s high energy UV light is absorbed and, I presume, the heat energy into which it is converted, as seen in the lapse rate inversion, heads back on out to space, rather than down tp the warmer land and oceans.. It is, in effect, reflected. If this energy is not considered to be ‘downwelling’, how can that which CO2 absorbs be either?
I was talking to a guy who did tests in college a long time ago in horticulture/agriculture. Interesting fellow.
“People say that carbon sinks are becoming saturated and we need machines to pull the carbon out of the air; If a person lays a certain grass and creates a healthy lawn, they are pulling way more carbon out of the sky than a person who plants a tree and waits for it to grow, in order to replace their “carbon footprint”. Grass farms are way more effective than planting trees(carbon footprint), especially with the increase in temperature.”
O3 is highly beneficial in the stratosphere, which it warms that layer inverse to the surface and yes (with the magnetosphere) protects us from daily higher energy rays of the Sun.
The magnetosphere also protects from solar storms, but CO2 and NO (nitric oxide) are extremely beneficial in that process in the upper atmosphere ejecting 95% of that energy back out into space. At that altitude CO2 ejects energy in one direction for a volume of emitting IR photons will only equally emit in all directions when the surrounding air parcel is the same temperature (LTE) local thermodynamic equilibrium.
Solar Storm:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solarstorm-power.html
for a volume of emitting IR photons (in a typical gas molecule) will only equally emit in all directions when the surrounding air parcel is the same temperature…
If exceptions to this rule exists, let’s hear it 🙂
You guys talking about ozone? I found this guy recently. He says the exact same thing as Postma about the “Greenhouse effect” being derived from fake physics, but still claims the earth is warming due to the ozone.
https://whyclimatechanges.com/
“Three-times more rapid warming from 2014 to 2016 was caused by ozone depletion due to chlorine and bromine gases emitted by the most voluminous basaltic lava flows to form since 1783. These flows, from Bárðarbunga volcano in central Iceland, covered 85 square kilometers, 33 square miles, of land within six months beginning on August 29, 2014.”
But, do mostly to Tony Heller and my own observations(Texas Freeze), I don’t thing the earth is warming. I think winters are getting worse.
I might have come up with a neat little argument for the “grand solar minimum”, or at least that the sun is the biggest factor on the surface temperature. it’s all downstream of the sun. Let me know if this sounds dumb.
The solar constant is about 1370w/m^2 right? that is the average solar forcing available to us our distance from the sun, averaging out the oval orbit I assume. 1370w/m^2 on a blackbody is 121.1C.
SO, now the highest temperature available for earth besides hot springs and volcanos, stuff like that, is 121.1C. In the middle of a desert it can’t go above that temperature, since in the desert the only available energy is the sun, like 99.99% of the rest of the surface.
Of course 1370w/m^2 is only an average, some days the flux will be higher and lower, Earth’s orbit matters here I’m sure.
But now lets imagine if the solar constant were to decrease down to 1350w/m^2, due to sunspot activity or whatever. NOW, the maximum available temperature in the desert is 119.66C. That is 1.44C difference right there!
So the simple argument is this on the greenhouse gas effect…
Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation:
W=alpha W + rho(p) + TW which can be reduced to 1= alpha + rho+ T
alpha=energy absorption
p=reflection
T=transmission
If p=0, T=0, and alpha =0 it is a perfect blackbody and the Earth is not a perfect blackbody, it is a gray/grey body.
So the argument should be how much is being absorbed and emitted to space, not around the system.
KIrchoff’s law has many variables if applied to the surface, but used for the effective blackbody as the proxy from incoming and outgoing radiation it works out perfectly.
So the controversy isn’t the results, it’s where the calculations are being applied.
So you can use that same perspective for the plate experiment, all that matters is what is being put into it and what is the net coming out of it which is Kirchhoff’s law.
Yes or no? That is the question.
Dutch anti globalist party leader Thierry Baudet exposes the Rockefeller Foundation in parliament, covid related
The entire world submitted. We have everything. Nothing can stop what is coming. WWG1WGA
Carry on Patriots
Meanwhile clown world continues to reach new depths of clownery. Hopefully that’s part of the plan.
Wherever Joe goes… MAGA WILL BE THERE!!!
I wonder how much they will have to cheat next time.
Operation Trust
Pretty much says it all
People love trying to bring up geothermal as if it is relevant to what excites the water on the surface.
Maybe that would be worth a article or video so I could just link that to them. Really the people who go there aren’t very clever though imo.
Here under Vasily K
Mentioning the Hadley cell.
The only thing that can throw ocean oscillations off is geothermal and nothing else warms the oceans besides solar power or much lesser geothermal. The average surface temperature of the oceans is 17 degrees Celsius (62.6 degrees Fahrenheit) that only accounts for the surface layer down to the thermocline which is only 10% of the ocean. Naturally the surface layer varies greatly due to location.
However 90% of the ocean or deep ocean is found beneath the thermocline and that temperature is between 0-3 degrees Celsius (32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit). It is assumed geothermal activity prevents the bottom of the oceans to get much colder than that. Over one million volcanoes are believed to exist on the ocean bottom and of those 1-3% is active or semi active at any given time. Just one of those volcanoes can increase surrounding water temperatures up to 5 degrees Celsius. Imagine if 10% of those volcanoes became active?
Surface ocean temps can be contributed to solar absorption but Deep Ocean warming is always geothermal.
The average deep ocean temperature is 2C. However, hydrothermal vents are ejecting super heated water at around 350C and increasing the pH near the vents up to +4.0.
Water temperature has densities, just like in the atmosphere warm air rises, meets colder air, cools it down via the lapse rate, and cold air drops. Oceans are being heated both from the top and the bottom, naturally warmer water at the bottom will rise, meeting much colder water and cooling. Any ice formed will also rise (density), so you have both warmer water and colder water circulating in all layers of the oceans.
Where are the oceans warmest? At the equator where they absorb the most solar energy (obviously).
you should copy and paste that in the youtube thread.
Could you put a percentage on it? percentage of source of energy in the ocean geothermal vs. solar.
my guess 90-95% solar, 5-10% geothermal.
Still, it is irrelevant to the surface because all the math checks outs to measurements without it. Correct?
Well, this is interesting:
The comments seem way too fluid for standard comments made by YT’s. I sense something is off…
” waves of light having the same energy, per wavelength. Regardless of which wavelength it might be…”
Seems more to me like backtalking for backscattering.
It seems everyone is committed to removing Plank’s energy equation which in turn conveniently justifies global warming.
“If light is a spherical wave, then how can it also be a “packet”. The packet idea was developed because of the denial of a medium for the propagation of light. The quantization of light “waves” by “h” is a property of the medium a.k.a. the Aether. All media that propagate waves are quantize by some value. I have expertise in the field of ultrasound. I know this is true and I DO understand more than most what “quanta” is. If you want to believe in “wave packets” then that is your business, but I prefer to think of light as waves propagating in a medium just like all other waves in the universe whether they be longitudinal or transverse waves.”
So do they understand the difference in bosons?
Why would anyone think the aether exists?
“Despite clinging to a belief in the “aether” – the massless invisible “fluid” through which “heat” is conducted and despite Maxwell , Boltzmann and Planck establishing electromagnetic radiation and thoroughly debunking the “aether” hypothesis Arrhenius won a Nobel Prize.”
People cling to ideologies over science even the majority of scientists which is why science is so stagnant and resists progress.
This was written in 2009 by geologist Timothy Casey B.Sc
“Arrhenius’ first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier.”
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
“My activities, from 2006 to the present time, have revolved around scientific research, based on a series of experiments, which are presently ongoing and form a part of a major investigation into academic fraud and negligence in the highly politicised arena of anthropogenic global warming. Preliminary findings, based on an initial and minor portion of the pre-research literature review, are documented at: http://geologist-1011.net.”
He actually uses the correct geometry math for a sphere and gets 15C w/o ghgs, but if he had used the correct geometry math for real time solar input, he would have arrived at the same calculations you did and understanding thermal energy distribution a little better, would have understood how that works out.
Boomie,
Sorry I had no keyboard just got one yesterday. Had to paste comments in. You can’t really measure geothermal amount of heating the oceans for several factors:
1. The oceans are extremely cold at the bottom and dense, just to warm the bottom up to what it is on average takes a lot of thermal energy, vents are heating up at 350F but that temp is quickly decreased by the ocean proper.
Nobody knows how thermally active the sea floor is and they have no way to monitor it at present and often submarine volcanoes go unnoticed.
Are we past the point of no return?
Cool prepping channel.
This guy says the USA dept calculator says inflation is about to devalue the dollar by 150% in 3 years. The national dept at 28 trillion will increase to 50+trillion.
Here
Right, we’ve barely explored any of the sea floor.
“The Group of Seven (G7) is an inter-governmental political forum consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.[1] Its members are the world’s largest IMF-advanced economies and wealthiest liberal democracies;[2][3] the group is officially organized around shared values of pluralism and representative government.[4] As of 2018, the G7 accounts for close to 60% of global net wealth ($317 trillion),[5] 32–46% of global gross domestic product (GDP)[n 1] and for about 770 million people or 10% of the world’s population.[6] Most members are Great powers in global affairs and maintain close economic, military, and diplomatic relations.
Originating from an ad hoc gathering of finance ministers in 1973, the G7 has since become a formal, high-profile venue for discussing and coordinating solutions to major global issues, namely in the areas of trade, security, economics, and climate change.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Seven
https://infogalactic.com/info/Group_of_Seven
They get together to discuss the weather. Have you ever seen such a group of morons…controlled morons, as fake as can be, representing a totally fake way of life, presiding over the destruction of the planet.
boomie789
They still don’t know where giant squids come from to this day the birthing place or colony or whatever has not been found as far as I know. I think they spotted the first live giant squid but I’m not even sure of that. Some squids have astounding camouflage able to independently change parts of their bodies (they have as as many neurons in their body as they do in the brain), I’ve seen the footage it is astounding. Maybe giant squids have mastered this?
Plus well any light in the deep ocean is a sign to run the other way.
They did find shark retreats though, where sharks hang out and rest. Something about how the water flows the sharks can sit still and the water does the work for them without swimming. Saw the footage on that too, pretty amazing and kind of creepy. Imagine being a diver and running into that?
My brother use to dive off of Hawaii and he said he loved to sit on the bottom of corral reefs, find a good rock and sit, watching the sharks swim overhead in the reefs with his harpoon gun. Which is not meant to kill sharks, it is used to bleed one (AKA SHARK BAIT) if under a shark attack, the blood will give the swimmer time to flee, if it all works out.
The climate commies are going to have a hard time deflecting responsibility for the coming depression considering all their green investment was supposed to rev the economy up. I suppose they could blame the bitterly cold weather…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/47th_G7_summit
Topics of discussion included developing a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged to call for the G7 to work on a global approach to pandemics to ensure an equal global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and to prevent future pandemics.[18] He proposed a five-point plan to prevent future pandemics, which includes a worldwide network of zoonotic research hubs, developing global manufacturing capacity for treatments and vaccines, the design of a global early warning system, the agreement of global protocols for a future health emergency and the reduction of trade barriers.[19] The G7 nations agreed to pledge 1 billion vaccines to other countries.[20] South African President Cyril Ramaphosa urged the group to boost COVID-19 testing, diagnostics and vaccines to help finance the World Health Organization’s program on those issues.[21] Johnson also focused on climate change, a top priority for the United Kingdom ahead of the COP26 conference, which it is due to host in November 2021.[18] UK Secretary for Business Kwasi Kwarteng has indicated that Johnson sought coordinated action on carbon border taxes, green finance, the phase-out of coal and helping poorer countries to step up climate action.[22] While the taxes have been backed by the EU and US, EU climate ambassador Mark Vanhuekelen indicated that Australia may oppose the measures.[23] The G7 nations pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.[20]
Don’t worry, Trump will be blamed for the depression.
That kind of sums it up doesn’t it. It’s a little hard to believe at a time when learning anything is at most people’s fingertips the majority of people choose to stay ignorant
Some lies take years of diligent study to learn.
Then the child points out that the emperor has no clothes.
Boomie it’s like we are going to have to burn down our whole learning system and start over and then maybe intwenty years there could be a change. Until then I fear we will just see the further destruction of our way of life.
It would be nice if we could outlaw lying.
Well said you two.
“Heat transfer can occur by three mechanisms – conduction, convection or radiation, with net energy being transferred from high temperature body to low temperature body. When a body is first exposed to a temperature differential, energy begins flowing, causing the temperature profile to keep changing with respect to time. The system is said to be in unsteady state.”
“Energy flow may simultaneously be happening into and out of the system depending on the setup. Eventually, a stage is reached when the energy flowing in and the energy flowing out balance and become equal. Once this happens, the temperature profile stops changing and becomes fixed. At this stage, the system is aid to have reached a steady state.”
The troposphere/surface is always in an unsteady state.
It’s amazing the delicate balance we live in. That we’ve had this little heaven, relative anyway, to exist in for so long.
Could you imagine a constant barrage of lighting? So intense, the ground starts exploding?
I don’t really understand this but maybe one of you will.
The spike proteins on the kung flu cause our body to retain iron, which causes our cells to die, which causes even more toxins and iron, which causes inflammation and cancers?
The spike proteins are what the vaccines are allegedly programing our DNA to make.
“So two diseases ? One really nasty one that only a few people get, plus a mild respiratory disease that more people get? They use the same diagnosis (and dodgy tests) to inflate the mild cases so we think the transmission of the nasty one is really high when actually it isn’t?”
“In layman’s english, something in the vax is stealing iron from the blood and assembling the iron in the injection site, that’s why metals stick to people at the injection site. Someone has researched this, also said, blood clots in defense when robbed of its iron. Blood clots.”
“So essentially the spike protein binds to the prophyrin which in turn prevents the free iron from attaching to the prophyrin, therefore resulting in more free iron and inflammation?”
I look at this real world experiment that showed that CO2 concentration had no effect on local temperature, and I wonder how would the climate alarmists refute it? I know that they must, but I do wonder how they would do it?
I don’t know if you have discussed this in the past. Apologies if you have.https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2020/12/real-world-outdoor-experiment-destroys-global-warming-narrative-as-co2-naturally-rises-from-0-1-to-75-surface-temperatures-drop-10c/
John B.
Only one comment on it and that was a troll misdirection.
“Hi Editor –
While I’m a believer that climate change is mainly due to the sun putting out more energy – explaining why atmospheres on all planets have been warming over the last several decades – it seems there is a flaw in the CO2 experiment cited.”
He just pretended to be an advocate against global warming and then attempts to discredit the experiment.
“This concern keeps me from reposting it on, say, FB. The effects of greenhouse gases, minor or not as the case may be, is a global one, not a local one. It’s the CO2 and Methane, etc. in the upper atmosphere, not in a small locality that traps the sun’s energy.”
Complete nonsense.
“The silver lining in the anti-fossil fuel hubbub is that the smoke and exhaust from fossil fuels is very toxic, poisoning the air we breath. We need healthy alternatives. I’m more persuaded the push to drive fear is rally about profits from carbon taxes than from any interest in the health of the human race at large.”
More nonsense.
This was a three D troll attack on the article while pretending not be a troll attacking the article.
Deny= He denied the results of the experiment as valid, typical troll move 101.
Deflect= He deflected the point of CO2 causing warming by claiming fossil fuels is toxic which is not true. It does release some but if properly filtered by clean air laws it’s not much. China, Northern Africa and Siberia are the largest contributors to toxic air pollution and the US is pretty much on the lowest scale in comparison.
Discredit= CO2 is apparently does not have the same results if your intention is to make it something it’s not. Local CO2 doesn’t cause warming but atmospheric CO2 somehow does. It’s like “backscattering” only the atmosphere can cause it to warm something above its radiative source not even experiments can duplicate it.
[video src="https://files.catbox.moe/3w3wnd.mp4" /]
Check out what this woman says.
Why would they kill the people who take the vax though? Same with sterilize, that part doesn’t make sense.
Then they are just going to have the based people left, lol.
This woman can’t be right, can she?
That would be actual eugenics taking place. Imagine getting rid of the sheep. That would end all this fn degeneracy and clown world. The sheep are solely responsible for clown world in all its manifestations…getting rid of the sheep, gets rid of clown world. The sheep are all those zealously wearing masks and getting the v.
Doesn’t make sense for the people currently in power. They like clown world. They like sheeple.
Maybe someone new is in power.
I don’t see it
My grandmother who I love took that poison.
My Doc spent 15 minutes trying to convince me to have the jab. I wasn’t having a bar of it. I said ‘give me a script for Ivermectin’ …he wasn’t having a bar of that! Stalemate. I said ‘don’t force me to take the version for horses’. The look of horror was palpable! Unfortunately the system has tied his hands and he could ‘end up in deep sh!t if it goes pear shaped’.
So ….still dodging the bullet atm.
The logic of a poster at WUWT:
“While it’s true that any one blob of atmosphere sends half its IR emissions upward and half downward, that’s not the net effect of the atmosphere as a whole. Overall, for every watt of longwave radiation the atmosphere sends to space, it sends 2.5 watts to the surface.
(This happens because the surface primarily sees longwave emissions from the warmer lower atmosphere, while space primarily sees longwave emissions from a higher, cooler part of the atmosphere.)”
So for every one dollar you put in the bank, bank scattering returns 2.5 dollars back to you.
Rickis Sikovit,
My doctor was completely unaware of Ivermectin, I had to spell it for him. There was zero chance that he would give me a prescription. I bought the horse formulation.
Here is a short video that might be of interest to some.
https://covidiscurable.com/covid19-ivermectin-saved-lives-in-toronto-nursing-home-pandemic-protection-turning-point/
Climate Scientists are specialists.
Specialist: Someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything there is to know about f…all!
Rickis Sikovit, John B. and all.
American Frontline Doctors setup a Teladoc for Covid-19 meds (speakwithanmd.com).
Both my wife and I got HCQ we take as a prophylactic. I could have received ivermectin but I didn’t know as much about it at the time. A pill a day for 7 days then once a week.
Filled out the form, payed $59, Doctor called me the next day, called in a prescription to their network (60 pills for a year, 2 refills). They sent me all the information in an email. Don’t try and use insurance. Again (speakwithanmd.com).
https://www.foxnews.com/us/st-louis-couple-mark-patricia-mccloskey-pay-fines-lose-guns
‘If we didn’t have somebody named George Soros in the world, we never would have been charged with anything,’ Mark McCloskey said
“They dropped all the weapons charges and they charged me with the lowest level of misdemeanor, which is something called assault four, which alleges that I purposely placed at least one other person in apprehension of immediate physical injury,” Mark McCloskey told Fox News over the phone after returning from court Thursday. “I said, ‘Well, I guess I did. That was all point of the guns.’”
McCloskey said he will pay a fine of $750, and his wife will pay an additional penalty on a different misdemeanor charge. He said they planned to pay them off Friday.
“It’s the value of the Second Amendment,” McCloskey said. “It’s kind of humorous for me at any rate, the charge they finally settled on for me, because it’s exactly what I did do. That’s the whole point of the Second Amendment. We stood out there with guns, and that placed them in imminent fear of physical injury, and they back off.”
The couple’s guns, seized after their initial arrests last year, will be destroyed, even though McCloskey’s attorney asked in court for the judge to allow his rifle to be donated to a charity auction.
“The good news is we’re not in front of charges now, so I don’t have any problem getting myself another AR,” he said.
What is the average person’s ability to imagine? Do you need to be a 1 to not fall for flat earth theory?
Not everyone can play little movies or simulations in their head?
You guys might be interested in this study from Israel https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/orders-magnitude-higher-deaths-vaccinated-israels-vaccine-data-reveals-frightenin1
“They are sealed tubes that are sat in the sun with different gases. Tubes with N2 and O2 simply don’t heat. Tubes with CH4, CO2, N2O, O3, CFC, and HCFC all do.”
Such a misdirect, claiming conduction and convection does not work on non ghgs. A tube in the Sun will get heated like everything else that sits in the Sun. By that logic you can place an ice cube in a glass tube sit it out in the Sun and it won’t melt for they “don’t heat”.
Bit more red pilling
https://trialsitenews.com/should-you-get-vaccinated/
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEB8p-ZCP7UwOruhfUWwTuSMqFwgEKg8IACoHCAow0tGKATCk9i4wnr88?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA%3Aen
Joe not sure if you have seen this but thought you may like as it is in Calgary ,20 out of 23 patients had at least one shot
CD, if any of the sealed up gas tubes warmed their heat source, then I’d sit up and take notice.
Mind you, it’s ‘slow down the heat source’s cooling’ these days, isn’t it?
It’s a bit like global warming, climate disruption, weirding, change…there’s no telling what the marketing department will come up with next.
J Cuttance
So 23 got it and 11 were fully vaccinated and 9 had one shot, and the response is
“ Mr. Williamson said in a statement that the outbreak reinforces that vaccines work.”
Do these people even listen to themselves? We really do live in dystopian times!
“CD, if any of the sealed up gas tubes warmed their heat source, then I’d sit up and take notice.”
LOL excellent point.
‘WOKE’ TIK TOK FAILS – Latest daily update
The temperature of the air is a temperature measure of ALL the particles of air in the measured parcel.
So…a 100ppm increase in CO2 since industrialisation has caused a 1C increase in air temperature?
100ppm is 1 CO2 molecule per 10,000 other air molecules.
Putting aside H2O for now, the other 9,999 or so other molecules are not absorptive to IR radiation so the only way CO2 could heat them would be via colliding with them individually (conduction) .
For each molecule it hits and transfers energy to, it loses an equal amount (conservation of energy).
So to increase the temperature of the parcel of 9,999 molecules by 1C, the CO2 molecule would have to have started with a temperature of 9,999C !
CO2 only absorbs 16% of the earths emitted IR, so that would make the surface temperature about 62,500C.
So was it ten years or ten milliseconds we have left?
Let me know if this argument holds water so I can use it against that moron down the street.
Our favorite spin doctor hard at work…
What is the correct equation for demonstrating this?
“Any credible physicist knows that ghgs eject energy, and as such helps to remove energy from that parcel of air if ejecting that energy to space. The closer to the tropopause you go, the increased odds that energy is being ejected out to space and as such is breaking the LTE (local thermodynamic equilibrium) of that air parcel which breaks the stable buoyancy of the potential energy of that air parcel… ”
Q (heat) is no longer doing any work
on the air parcel, so in the static coulomb it is maintaining it’s position thorough potential energy.
So what would be the simplest equation to demonstrate that? Would you have to demonstrate that on a microscopic and macroscopic level?
U=stable
P=stable
V=stable
T=stable
So in this instance PE would be gravitational energy based?
Potential Energy Concept:
The potential energy U is equal to the work you must do to move an object from the U=0 reference point to the position r. The reference point at which you assign the value U=0 is arbitrary, so may be chosen for convenience, like choosing the origin of a coordinate system.
The force on an object is the negative of the derivative of the potential function U. This means it is the negative of the slope of the potential energy curve. Plots of potential functions are valuable aids to visualizing the change of the force in a given region of space.
When you add PE derivative, integral and conservative force well it gets really complex.
Negative Signs in Potential:
F in the definition of potential energy is the force exerted by the force field, e.g., gravity, spring force, etc. The potential energy U is equal to the work you must do against that force to move an object from the U=0 reference point to the position r. The force you must exert to move it must be equal but oppositely directed, and that is the source of the negative sign. The force exerted by the force field always tends toward lower energy and will act to reduce the potential energy.
The negative sign on the derivative shows that if the potential U increases with increasing r, the force will tend to move it toward smaller r to decrease the potential energy.
Potential Energy Derivative:
If the potential energy function U is known, the force at any point can be obtained by taking the derivative of the potential.
Potential Energy Integral:
If the force is known, and is a conservative force, then the potential energy can be obtained by integrating the force.
Conservative Force:
A conservative force may be defined as one for which the work done in moving between two points A and B is independent of the path taken between the two points. The implication of “conservative” in this context is that you could move it from A to B by one path and return to A by another path with no net loss of energy – any closed return path to A takes net zero work.
A further implication is that the energy of an object which is subject only to that conservative force is dependent upon its position and not upon the path by which it reached that position. This makes it possible to define a potential energy function which depends upon position only.
-Courtesy of HyperPhysics
Sorry two streaming thoughts I merged into one. I actually was thinking of an equation to show both the breaking of LTE in a parcel by IR and how to show it stably buoyant under its PE. I started off with a quote from breaking LTE and went into the second thought of a stably buoyant dry parcel of air with the second part.
Breaking LTE means it would drop and thus not part of the other conversation (obviously).
More liars for hire on global warming…
The host gets so angry lol.
boomie789 at 2021/06/21 at 11:54 AM
A interesting (but an overly long 45minutes) video about “Who Owns Big Pharma + Big Media?” is at https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/blackrock-vanguard-own-big-pharma-media/ .
Spoiler — if it ain’t Black Rock it’s Vanguard they say.
“To know who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”-Voltaire
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CQZRUPBnEsd/?utm_medium=copy_link
https://chimpreports.com/health-minister-explains-empty-casket-burial-incident/
ehh idk maybe there actually was a body
What should be an interesting cat fight is starting-up at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/22/serious-error-of-physics-in-recent-grl-paper-loeb-et-al-on-earths-unprecedented-heat-retention/
The headline is “Serious Error of Physics in Recent GRL paper Loeb et al on Earth’s ‘unprecedented heat retention’”
The main thrust is …
No doubt more IPCC ordained version of fisiks will be authoritatively voiced by the true believers.
also
https://twitter.com/spinte8/status/1407258675358715907?s=20
boomie789 at 2021/06/22 at 7:47 PM
Bio-engineering people to be intolerant of nutritious food?
That is truly frightening!
Same buffoonery, just a different branch of buffoons.
^Alleged Canadian Liberal Party Board member leaking government’s Orwellian(even more) plans
Nobody is going to fight for us.
O, thanks for letting us know Rothschild.
Qanon is a pacifying psyop imo. Little to no elites are on our side. I can barely think of 5.
“Meanwhile, a scientific revolution in the physics of heat shows unequivocally that greenhouse-warming theory is not only mistaken, it is physically impossible. ”
https://whyclimatechanges.com/
Ain’t that it.
I wish they would remake that movie and pay homage to the original . Who besides Rowdy Roddy Piper could make this line work?
“I am here to chew bubblegum and kick ass… and I’m all outta bubblegum.”
-R.I.P Roderick George Toombs, AKA Roddy Rowdy Piper
Remember that Discord server we recorded the debate in? They believe you, most of them anyway. The guy you debated never admitted he was wrong though, he left.
Lol gosh that gif…lol
CD I’d be happier about the ozone hole/warming theory if chloroflourocarbons had actually been detected in the stratosphere. Nasa established a chlorine dioxide-ozone relationship with their U2 plane but not a lot else https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history_SH.html . Some have described the ozone hole panic as a dry-run for warmism.
J Cuttance
“Some have described the ozone hole panic as a dry-run for warmism.”
It was, all the “wasteland” movies” were based on it. Solar rays making it so dangerous you couldn’t walk outside in daylight w/o protection it was global warming 1.0.
The “depressions” are normal at the poles and solar storms also deplete ozone, something NASA has been aware of since at least 2000 and apparently an increase in upper atmospheric NOx confines the polar vortex.
“Heat is a broad spectrum or continuum of frequencies of oscillation where the amplitude of oscillation at each frequency is calculated by Planck’s law when corrected. This spectrum cannot be described accurately in a single number of watts per square meter.”
That sounds exactly like something JP would say and actually has, if not in different words.
Now some are trying to say astrophysics is racist. https://www.city-journal.org/cornell-black-hole-class-racializes-astronomy?wallit_nosession=1
Oops Joseph, my last seems to have hit the bin, where did it go?
Could it be that I’m not black enough?
Retarded idiots.
Environmental Chemistry: Kool-Aid drinker and prerequisite for environmentalist activist. I guess E-science is a thing now since they all have environmental in their degree somewhere it makes them an instant “expert”.
Environmental Biology is a Physical Science at the intersection of environmental science, ecology, evolution, and global change. Environmental biology examines the ways organisms, species, and communities influence, and are impacted by, natural and human-altered ecosystems.
A fancy word for E-activist. This is the garbage passed as science in higher education these days? Just indoctrination of the rank and file.
Fluff garbage.
[video src="https://files.catbox.moe/w0oycy.webm" /]
^Part 1
[video src="https://files.catbox.moe/vvyvmt.webm" /]
^Part 2
[video src="https://files.catbox.moe/tqplke.webm" /]
^Part 3
[video src="https://files.catbox.moe/tr10an.webm" /]
^Part 4
If you’re not busy I have a special request. Having an argument about the moon landing and I want to know if this makes sense. Sorry it is broken up into little clips like that.
“The light gets spread out and diffused on the surface of earth due to the atmosphere. So the surface at an extreme angle to you, has the light reflecting into your eyes differently than it happens on the moon with just direct undiffused light.”
“Basically the things closer to you will be reflecting more light into your eyes”
“The light on the moon would look more like the light in a studio”
“it wouldn’t be like natural light here with an atmosphere diffusing it, bouncing it, creating even lighting”
“These people saying it should be the same are imagining what is should look like on earth.”
-Me
Does my explanation sound right to you or do you have a better one?
Thats good.
So gases w/o a dipole moment once heated still has conductive heating but does it convect? If it does convect it would cool off adiabatically.
Claiming it has no way of cooling back off on it’s own is ludicrous. Conduction heats it then conduction should cool it. Add the KE transference of molecules and the E is transferrable.
However, conduction can’t break LTE in a parcel of air.
…Unless of course it is interacting with other parcels of air at different temps.
These guys contradict themselves constantly trying to make up science as they go along which is what they accuse us of doing. Convection works through all gases so all gases once heated can cool.
Convection is a form of losing energy, or cooling if you will.
CD a competitive paraglider once told me that updraughts went up in the middle and away at the sides like a mushroom, the trick being to feel for the middle part and circle around.
Exactly, conduction to convection and out to advection.
Crazy conspiracy theory or a crazy conspiracy? You decide.
Another great video on “renewable energy”
Tony Heller…
Click to access ui83ic.pdf
Lots of cool links and qoutes related to the climate fraud. Talks about a bunch of theories including the Grand Solar Minimum. Also how the “Greenhouse Effect” is fictitious.
“D. Tscheuschner
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works
of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global
climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat
pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the
atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never
exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is
taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the
popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a)
there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious
atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature
of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number
calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a
radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the
atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
International Journal of Modern Physics B23:275-364,2009. arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph] DOI:
10.1142/S021797920904984X”
That’s all pretty good Boomie,how do we get these morons just to consider these simple facts.
Since global warming is now political, it would not matter. Scientists endorse or lose funding, get fired and/or black listed.
The “science denier” list is nothing more than a “hit list”. May as well put out a bounty to kill that person’s reputation which simply proves it is nothing more than political.
The science for global warming was pretty much settled along time ago. Unfortunately that science was put in a dungeon somewhere with an iron mask over it and political science took it’s place. Political pundits like Strong and Gore used it for a backdoor into global policies that continue unchecked even today.
So much wasted money that could have been used for resource development and interplanetary travel to get more resources and colonize a very empty universe.
When you “snap” you fingers you have two choices: Wipe out half of the population or double the resources.
An activist will always wipe out half the population. A humanitarian will always seek to increase resources and technology to support the population.
A conservative finite balance between both is reality.
Well put CD it’s sad that at a time in history when we can learn so much so easily people in general would rather believe what they hear on CNN and out of the mouths of politicians. When you think of all the money that has been wasted that could of been put to use fighting actual pollution like ocean plastic and things of that nature rather than non existent problems the stupidity is overwhelming. There is nothing more convincing than irrational fear.
Our institutions are hostile and parasitic. Weak men, women and children follow the institutions.
We need our own institutions instilling our values.
Best analogy I’ve heard:
‘If you want to stop your coffee from going cold…just add more milk!’
https://archive.li/0KdTT
^Before
https://archive.li/7u0ZH
^After
^ Frame job
^ The actual perpetrators
the solar constant is 1361 W/m^2 average and that average varies from year to year by about 1-5 W/m^2 which is not marginal. As is very common don’t confuse sunspots and solar storms with the average solar output. TSI has remained relatively consistent for decades.
Solar storm consistency is associated with the cycles, a quieter Sun means less storms, not necessarily a less solar constant. Solar storms directly affects the upper atmosphere, NOT the TSI at the surface. The inverted warming of the stratosphere reduces from a reduction in solar storms, although in the solar constant higher solar rays are still being bombarded on the planet but the addition of more higher rays contributed to the solar storms are reduced with less solar storms.
The black body has dropped a degree, according to NASA Earth fact sheet, most likely caused by the reduction of solar storms heating the upper atmosphere. The surface average of 288.15 Kelvin has not changed, showing that solar storms does not influence surface temperatures according to the data available.
What causes glaciations? Well to be honest we have no definitive answers for we have never been in one.
However the most logical is a decrease in surface TSI caused by a variation of factors contributed largely to the Milankovitch cycles, or “periodic changes of variables in the Earth’s orbit”. The glacial periods occur when there is a decrease in the amount of incoming solar radiation coupled with a decrease in solar radiation absorption due to a lower angle of incidence of sunlight and a greater reflectance from Earth. In other words, the more ice the more colder it gets as we get less solar radiation. The emissivity of the planet changes.
A quieter Sun does mean an increase in cosmic rays reaching the surface.
Trying to convince Eli of your work. The Propertarian. I got a few guys who get it. In the Propertarian telegram groups.
I’m pretty sure I got Bryan thinking too. I wonder how a conversation with Curt about it would go?
A few of them should know of it already. I used to interact with them on FB, Curt included.
Yea at least one guy, Martin. He doesn’t believe me though, I think. Although I probably got him thinking too.
Not many seem to find it quite as fascinating as me though lol.
I’m really surprised at the lack of impact it has on the minds of ostensibly intelligent people. Clown world.
Click to access f5c6kh.pdf
Click to access Immunization-Graphs-RO-2009.pdf
Graphs showing disease rates over time and when vaccines where introduced. I’m not sure if vaccines do anything…good…at all. It was a lot of other factors, like indoor plumbing and better practices.
Exactly boomie.
Does the insulation of the atmosphere change the temperature of the surface? No.
If you only have time to watch a little start at 10m and watch a bit. Really this is a must watch though.
I think you are the one who showed me this channel actually.
That channel is great. Yes likely posted it recently.
@CD Marshall
Are you sure?
I think technically insulation would just be blocking the sun shine lowering the surface temperature. Like Volcano ash. It won’t raise the temperature but it would lower it. Right?
@boomie789
I was asked, “would insulation of the atmosphere change the surface temperature?” No it would not matter, the surface is heated to what the surface is heated to according to the TSI and it does not slow cooling to make the surface warmer.
It was really a trap question used out of context. For the other part they were using insulation in a home, which also does not change the temperature of the heating source, it just helps to maintain the maximum potential temperature.
So in context of how that question was addressed to me, the answer is no. Albedo of course is a different subject.
The atmosphere is mainly heated by the surface, so no the atmosphere’s insulation can’t make the surface hotter than the original temperature. That’s how they slip in back scattering which you already knew, just the question w/o context was confusing. That is exactly how they want those questions to be, off setting to cause confusion.
Now see if you had said yes, they would twist that into you accepting insulation does influence the temperature of the surface and back scattering is justified. Also another troll will pop in and support the firs troll saying you did say that to discredit you on down the road and it was all a set up. They have even inserted the word themselves and then claim I said it down the line.
Science with logic is literally dying, RIP Professor Robert M. Carter {1942-2016}
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epJybIc8cGM&t=1s
A logical, intelligent argument on climate change.
[video src="https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/624613876016742402/859962096145661962/video0.mp4" /]
More context to above.
This is a bit easier to share.
Wow…they must feel so powerful. What a demonstration of their infinite omnipotent power…so impressive.
You have to wear a muzzle like a dog too. Probably had to show your vaccination card before you are allowed to speak as well.
OK Mr. President let get rid of ‘fossil fuels’
“Canada’s old national heat record was 45 degrees Celsius, or 113 Fahrenheit, but on Sunday, Lytton, a town of fewer than 300 about three hours east of Vancouver, reached 46.6 Celsius, or 115.9 Fahrenheit, according to Environment Canada.”
Hmm Joseph, thoughts on those claims? How hot is Calgary? You can easily follow the heat waves from the tropics and Canada is already cooling off.
The “environment Canada” is suspect.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=36;-46;1&l=temperature-2m
Not that hard to follow the heat…
They even threw on a very nice sea surface layer…
https://www.ventusky.com/?l=temperature-water
This is refreshing stuff…
“Solar heat – not CO2 – caused the June 2021 heatwave…”
{insert Greta “How dare you!” meme}
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/solar-heat-not-co2-caused-the-june-2021-heatwave/
@Robert Kernodle
“COVID CRIMINAL NETWORK HAS BEEN MAPPED OUT AND EXPOSED! SHARE THIS
A German IT project manager who chooses to stay anonymous has dropped this bombshell document exposing the entire covid criminal network. It connects the complex relationships between Governments, NGOs, big pharma, private companies, documents, universities and key people. The document is 170 pages long. There are 6,500 objects and over 7,200 links, including the financial flows.”
(https://files.catbox.moe/rqp3en.pdf)
Making sure you see this