“Rebranding is a marketing strategy in which a new name, term, symbol, design, concept or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, competitors, and other stakeholders. Often, this involves radical changes to a brand’s logo, name, legal names, image, marketing strategy, and advertising themes.”
simulacrum: an unsatisfactory imitation or substitute (Google Dictionary)
simulacrum: a slight, unreal, or vague semblance of something; superficial likeness (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/simulacrum)
simulacrum: a representation which bears no relation to any reality whatsoever (French social theorist Jean Baudrillard, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum)
sophistry: a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading; the art of using such arguments; subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning (Collins English Dictionary)
I’ve written previously somewhere: what is the point of creating a simulacrum? The point is that when you can re-create another person’s perception of reality, and indeed their reality, then you own that person, because you’re in control of their world and what they are able to perceive about the world. Yes yes…the Matrix movie.
But I just want to list a few pertinent examples:
Rebranding the entirely normal and nominal weather into the simulacrum of “climate change”, which you must now dedicate your life to “solving”, where the sophistry of the term “climate change” in its meaningful sense cannot rationally be “denied” because it is something that exists and has always existed, thus defending the simulacrum through the ambiguity of its actual meaning. But we must now pay people and let them control the entire world to protect us from the weather.
Rebranding the entirely normal and nominal seasonal cold and flu into the simulacrum of “THE VIRUS”, which you must now dedicate your life to “solving”. The body’s natural and common immune cleansing reaction to changes in environment and sunlight and general diet and lifestyle becomes something which is anathema to the body and which you must therefore pay other people to protect you from and also allow them to control world.
And another example in practice, related to the climate sophistry:
I just spent the last three days writing a book over EMAIL to a group of world-wide skeptics and some organization they’re part of with political influence.
Of course, as always, some snake in the grass 5’th column operatives got in on the thread, and start arguing for backradiation heating, etc.
So of course, I patiently go through the First Law, its definition, its equation, and then the definition and equations for heat, explaining that what is required to increase temperature is heat, and heat comes from something hotter only, as per the definitions and the equations for which I supplied all the references, etc. That is:
The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us how to increase the temperature of a body:
dU = Q + W = m Cp dT
To get a positive dT, where the context is heat and radiation and not work, one requires positive heat Q.
The definition for Q for conductive transfer is for example:
Q = k *(Thot – Tcool)
and a simple expression for plane parallel geometry for radiant heat transfer is for example:
Q = sigma * (Thot^4 – Tcool ^4)
Heat is what is required to increase temperature (First Law of Thermodynamics), and heat is a difference of energy whether in conductive or radiative terms.
Each of the two terms on the right-hand side of the above heat equations are energy. It is the difference between energy, which is heat. And so, of course, the laws of thermodynamics do refer to energy, and they define when energy can act as heat.
You know what the two snakes in the grass did then? Sparing the personal attacks to my intelligence they feigned to manage perceptions, they write, to quote:
“Your definition of heat is much too restrictive. WE define heat as the thermal radiation which can come from an icecube, and that this must be absorbed by any other body, and therefore indeed a cold substance can make a hotter object increase in temperature via radiation, because this is about energy, not your restrictive definition of heat to which radiation doesn’t apply.”
So, their argument (sophistry) is to just make up new definitions, which they have no equations or references for…they just make up with words new sophistical arbitrary definitions and call “my” (they’re not MINE) definitions of the First Law and heat “too restrictive”!
I mean, you can argue anything you want, and you can win any argument, when you can merely change and make up new definitions for words on a whim.
“I would only ask you to be consistent; or, if you must change, change openly and let there be no deception.” – Socrates
Yah…”too restrictive” indeed, because they debunk the RGHE, and so, they simply create new definitions.
So I ended that exchange with:
This is mockery. People, this is mockery. This is a mockery of conversation, of thinking, of reason, of bare decency.
I cannot believe that this is what I have to engage with. I really cannot believe it.
We’re all being played for fools by these people in a con-game. Can others really not see that this is what these snake-in-the-grass fake “skeptics” are doing?
Do you all enjoy being mocked? Because we’re being mocked.
Of course, the purpose of rebranding and simulacra is not only mockery, although mockery seems to be an important part of it: the purpose is of course control, and more so, profit. It’s really just about parasitical profit. Profit in energy, of its various forms…profit of power.
But it is specifically a parasitical strategy to profit, which is what makes it so dysgenic, degenerative, destructive, and disgusting. Parasites destroy their host…there is no symbiosis or mutual benefit…they are simply and plainly a destructive race to the bottom, to total death.
Take for example the Lion – the King of the Savannah. Apparently groups of ticks will burrow into the lion’s neck to the point that the lion will have a large gaping baseball-sized hole right in their neck that can never heal, and then, the lion dies. The ticks had a great old party riding that lion down, the ticks had the best time of their parasitical life, they had the life that they would wish to live over and over again forever, as they sucked the life out of the lion and rode its negentropy down to entropic destruction – that’s their perception, of their life.
There is no negotiating with a tick, a parasite. To negotiate with them is to ask them to not live their life! How can you ask something to not live its style of life? Of course you can’t. It’s not about morality or ethics or compromise for mutual benefit – it cannot be. A parasite must extract wealth and energy from its host, and there is no return in exchange possible to be given by them – that’s how they live, how they exist, and they cannot and do not exist or live otherwise.
The only thing that you do with parasites is destroy them, because that’s the only thing that they will do with you.
All heat is energy, but not all energy is heat.
Pingback: AEP Finally Wakes Up To The Green Nightmare – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
The more incompetence there is, the more malevolence thrives.
Ahhh…now that’s making better sense of it, boomie. I think that really functionality explains it.
The incompetent and malevolent thrive, but the competent and malevolent take control and really thrive, the incompetent and benign believe everyone is like them and everything is perfect, the competent and benign are basically and functionally identical to their incompetent counterparts just make more money. The only resistance can be found in the competent and righteous, the autonomous…few and far between.
Going around the internet. It’s like that natural bomb under Yellowstone park.
Another ticking time bomb, but we don’t know how much time is left on the clock.
Could be tomorrow, could be thousands of years.
“No, is the simple answer, based on most research. The answer was the same in 2017 and it seems that it is necessary to confirm it once again in 2021.”
“Based on the current geometry of the island, the geological structure, the inclination of the layers, etc., Cumbre Vieja would be stable enough according to the geo-mechanical models and stability analysis undertaken. For it to happen otherwise, a very high magnitude earthquake would have to occur simultaneously along with an eruption with a high explosive index. Or, the current volcano would have to reach, in its natural growth, more than a thousand metres above its current maximum elevation,” something that was explained in 2017″
Well maybe not.
Just ask them how many cold objects does it take to surround a warm object to make the warm object even warmer.
Their main fallacy is not about radiation, it’s about absorption. Their statement:
“WE define heat as the thermal radiation which can come from an icecube, and that this must be absorbed by any other body…”
Is just plain wrong. Radiation from a cooler object is simply nit absorbed ‘for energy gain’ by a warmer object!
Doh. Replace nit with not.
The people you were talking to were incorrect. But you’re missing the mark too.
An object reaches a steady state temperature when there is a total of zero heat exchange between that object and its surroundings.
The earth’s surface receives heat from the sun, and loses heat to the atmosphere and to space. The steady state condition is Qsun+Qspace+Qatmo=0 .
If there were no IR active gases in the atmosphere, the earth would lose heat directly to space, and this amount would be greater than the current |Qspace+Qatmo|.
Therefore the earth would cool until the heat loss to space (proportional to T^4) equaled the heat input from the sun.
In no case is there heat flow from a colder object to a hotter one.
There is no such thing as Qspace: since space cannot hold a temperature, it is therefore not possible for space to absorb heat. Thus, your steady state equation is incorrect.
Secondly, there is no general steady state between the surface and atmosphere, as variable heating is constantly occurring, as with the weather, etc.
The only steady state is conservation of energy, where the energy in equals the energy out from the sun to the Earth.
Lastly: if there were no IR active gases in the atmosphere, then the atmosphere would have no ability to emit, a low emissivity. If IR active gases allow the atmosphere to emit, whereas the atmosphere could not emit without them, then IR active gases provide a vector for the atmosphere to cool, thus providing for a cooler atmosphere. An atmosphere with no IR active gases, completely unable to emit thermal energy, would be hotter.
In any case, Nikolov & Zeller have shown that the near-surface air temperature is a function of solar incidence, and atmospheric mass.
The radiative greenhouse effect postulate of political alarmist climate pseudoscience does not exist – it contradicts basic theory, and is refuted by empirical test.
“ There is no such thing as Qspace: since space cannot hold a temperature, it is therefore not possible for space to absorb heat. Thus, your steady state equation is incorrect.”
Have to disagree with you here. There is ample evidence that objects loses heat to space. A very clean example is the Voyager spacecraft, which must continually run heaters to compensate heat loss to space, maintaining the desired steady state temperature.
“ Lastly: if there were no IR active gases in the atmosphere, then the atmosphere would have no ability to emit, a low emissivity.”
This is true. However, as you know an object that cannot emit radiation cannot absorb it, and vice versa. Both effects have to be accounted for.
Nikolic & Zeller is an exercise in overfitting 6 data points. With 4 parameters von Neumann can fit an elephant, and all that.
“which must continually run heaters to compensate heat loss to space, maintaining the desired steady state temperature”
It is thermal energy loss to space; space is not absorbing heat, since space never increases in temperature because it can have no temperature.
“as you know an object that cannot emit radiation cannot absorb it”
The atmosphere absorbs heat from the surface via convection. If GHG’s increase the atmosphere’s ability to shed energy from itself, then they cool the atmosphere. And we still have the fact that the RGHE postulate conflicts with basic thermodynamic theory, and is refuted by experiment.
Thus going back to your original statement:
“The earth’s surface receives heat from the sun, and loses heat to the atmosphere and to space. The steady state condition is Qsun+Qspace+Qatmo=0.”
The system is not in thermal equilibrium steady state with no heat flow.
The only steady state is conservation of energy, where the energy in equals the energy out from the sun to the Earth, and this is what is observed. But the system itself is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
The only steady state condition is Ein = Eout. Heat flow is almost never zero.
“ It is thermal energy loss to space; space is not absorbing heat, since space never increases in temperature because it can have no temperature”
The first law of thermodynamics says Delta U=Q+W. Unless the spacecraft is doing work on its environment — which it isn’t — then Delta U=Q, and any change in the spacecraft’s energy is due to heat transfer.
“ The atmosphere absorbs heat from the surface via convection. If GHG’s increase the atmosphere’s ability to shed energy from itself, then they cool the atmosphere.”
Again, you are neglecting the absorption of radiation caused by nonzero emissivity. If you ignore the energy input terms and keep the energy output terms, of course you will conclude that the effect is to cool.
I acknowledge that it is a confusing special case, which most people do not understand. Space cannot absorb heat. However, an object can radiate energy into space. Whether that energy can act as heat for another body depends of course on the body, but with respect to space, it receives no heat.
Since there is no second body when considering radiation into space, then there is no Q, and you just have
dU/dt = m Cp dT = area * sigmaT^4
There is no term to subtract away from the emission of the body (satellite), and so there is no Q because Q is a difference between temperatures of bodies.
Don’t worry about it – most people get confused about outer space and temperatures. It is a special case.
“of course you will conclude that the effect is to cool”
Then the effect is null, just as is observed in the climate, and is confirmed in experimentation.
In any case, we’re getting away from the core of your original comment which had the fundamental errors, which I will correct again:
The system is not in thermal equilibrium steady state with no heat flow.
And this equation where you stated:
“The steady state condition is Qsun+Qspace+Qatmo=0”
is not steady state either since the three terms could be continually changing and thus the objects they correspond to would not be in steady state, and so the statement and the equation don’t even support each other.
The only steady state is conservation of energy, where the energy in equals the energy out from the sun to the Earth, and this is what is observed. But the system itself is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
The only steady state condition is Ein = Eout. Heat flow is almost never zero.
You’re arguing about other things in order to get away from the fundamental errors of the core of your original comment.
“ Don’t worry about it – most people get confused about outer space and temperatures. It is a special case.”
I am worried about it, because heat loss to space is equally important as heat input from the sun. If we can’t agree on what it means then it’s impossible to proceed. Also, the very first thing you said was that the “no heat to space” argument invalidates my post. So it seems very important to get this right.
Moreover, the “no heat to space” idea is just not true. The first law is very clear: a change in energy is due to work or heat, Delta U=W+Q. If W=0, then Delta U=Q. There is only one first law, and there is only one way to interpret the equation Delta U=Q, so there is no special case.
“Qsun+Qspace+Qatmo=0 is not steady state either since the three terms could be continually changing and thus the objects they correspond to would not be in steady state”
I agree. Certainly the earth and atmosphere have complicated internal dynamics that we have no hope of exploring in a comment chain. Of course, your statement “ Ein = Eout” is subject to the same caveats, and is generally not true. The earth is always gaining and losing energy, but it mostly cancels out over a day or so, so roughly Ein=Eout. The same is true for Qsun+Qspace+Qatmo=0 .
Yes, thermodynamics, with heat, energy, and temperature concepts, is very difficult for most people to understand and get a good grasp of.
If you would like some definitions of heat, here are a few:
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects. We say that “heat” flows from a warm radiator into a cold room, from hot water into a cold ice cube, and from the hot Sun to the cool Earth. The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat”.” – Thermal Physics (pg. 18)
“If a physical process increases the total entropy of the universe, that process cannot happen in reverse since this would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Processes that create new entropy are therefore said to be irreversible. […]
“Perhaps the most important type of thermodynamic process is the flow of heat from a hot object to a cold one. We saw […] that this process occurs because the total multiplicity of the combined system thereby increases; hence the total entropy increases also, and heat flow is always irreversible. […]
“Most of the process we observe in life involve large entropy increases are therefore highly irreversible: sunlight warming the Earth […].” – Thermal Physics (pg. 82)
“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.” – Thermodynamics 
“The temperature of a body alone is what determines whether heat will be transferred from it to another body with which it is in contact or vice versa. A large block of ice at 00C has far more internal energy than a cup of hot water; yet when the water is poured on the ice some of the ice melts and the water becomes cooler, which signifies that energy has passed from the water to the ice.
“When the temperature of a body increases, it is customary to say that heat has been added to it; when the temperature decreases, it is customary to say that heat has been removed from it. When no work is done, ΔU = Q, which says that the internal energy change of the body is equal to the heat transferred to it from the surroundings. One definition of heat is:
Heat is energy transferred across the boundary of a system as a result of a temperature difference only.” – Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics 
“How and why does heat energy flow? In other words, we need an expression for the dependence of the flow of heat energy on the temperature field. First we summarize certain qualitative properties of heat flow with which we are all familiar:
1. If the temperature is constant in a region, no heat energy flows.
2. If there are temperature differences, the heat energy flows from the hotter region to the colder region.
[…]” – Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations 
 D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000.
 G. J. V. Wylen, Thermodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, 1960.
 A. H. Carter, Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics, Prentice-Hall, 2001.
 R. Haberman, Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations: With Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems, Prentice-Hall, 1998.
A comment by Schroeder is:
“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.” (pg. 17)
And so, you can see that it is not correct to say that space accepts heat. This point is made especially clear in radiative transfer where view factors must be applied which absolutely make it clear that heat is only something which another body can absorb, while at the same time, specifying that the general thermal emission from a source object is separate from heat.
Temperature and heat only relates to bodies, as per the First Law – the first law, and the laws of thermodynamics, do not apply to space, because space is not a material substance. Only material substance may attain temperature, hence only such substance may be referred to heat. To deny that space is different from matter, to deny that this is a “special case” of a fundamental difference between things which are clearly different, is nonsensical.
In any case, your original comment and those following aren’t contributing any real questions or insights, and are merely reducing to semantical argumentation about nothing really too relevant. Please study the definitions of heat so that you can get up to speed, and, if you have anything valuable to contribute after that regarding the falsity of the radiative greenhouse effect postulate by theory and its empirical refutation by experiment, then I can allow your comments to post again, otherwise this sort of bot-baiting into pointless semantics is of course not worth our time.
Joe, my original point was quite simple. The presence of an atmosphere can result in a higher temperature for earth, even if no heat flows from the atmosphere to earth. From my original comment,
“If there were no IR active gases in the atmosphere, the earth would lose heat directly to space, and this amount would be greater than the current |Qspace+Qatmo|.”
That is, |Qspace, no atmosphere| > |Qatmo+Qspace,with atmosphere| is sufficient to result in a higher surface temperature for earth. This does not require Qatmo>0, i.e. does not require heat to flow from the atmosphere to the surface.
This was a very simple, and correct, point. Your immediate response was that heat lost to space is actually neither heat nor work,, but some unknowable form of energy to which the first law of thermodynamics does not apply. Well, no reasonable debate can proceed from such a declaration — we need to use the laws of thermodynamics to have a discussion about thermodynamics. That is why it is important to clear up this point.
My original comment still stands. The presence of an atmosphere can cause a higher temperature for the surface, even when heat flows only from the earth to the atmosphere, or Qatmo<0. The presence of the atmosphere need only reduce the magnitude of Qspace.
Joe if you ever get back on Twitter some scientists could really use your support and education. It seems that aged geoscientists see through this farce more than other fields…And a few chemists.
@SamMich 2021/09/20 at 4:18 pm
I’ll post this one just for the exercise of elucidating SamMich’s numerous errors of scientific thinking and conceptualism which reduces exchanges such as these to arguments over semantics rather than substace.
SamMich: “The presence of an atmosphere can result in a higher temperature for earth”
This statement is actually meaningless. There are local in-situ temperatures, which are constantly changing all over the Earth, and then there is the effective radiative temperature of the Earth.
The effective radiative temperature of any planet with an atmosphere is typically less than the temperature which would be determined without an atmosphere, because atmospheres tend to reflect solar energy, thus reducing solar heat. The moon has a hotter effective temperature without an atmosphere for example, than the Earth with an atmosphere, and the reason why the Earth is cooler than the moon is because the Earth has an atmosphere.
SamMich: “That is, |Qspace, no atmosphere| > |Qatmo+Qspace,with atmosphere| is sufficient to result in a higher surface temperature for earth”
The surface temperature of the Earth with an atmosphere is cooler than that of the moon (or Earth) without an atmosphere, because the atmosphere cools the surface 1) by reducing solar heating, and 2) by convective cooling. The moon is direct empirical evidence of this fact.
Yes, of course, we must use the laws of thermodynamics. You are not doing that as yet. The original idea stated that “The steady state condition is Qsun+Qspace+Qatmo=0” is nonsensical, and does not even satisfy itself, let alone satisfying thermodynamic theory. It’s just a bunch of random letters put together with plusses in between.
Of course, I clearly explained that it is energy lost to space, not heat, etc etc etc.
This is really quite cute, this attempt at inversion and psychological projection to pretend to accuse me of not using the Laws of Thermodynamics. It is so sad that this is all that you have.
“The presence of an atmosphere can cause a higher temperature for the surface”
By point of fact, the Earth with an atmosphere has a cooler surface temperature than that of the moon. The moon goes up tp +120C. The Earth stays below 55C.
What we could discuss is the adiabatic gradient, in regards to the near-surface air temperature and the thermal structure of the atmosphere:
The change in energy of a parcel (m) of air above the surface is its change in thermal energy plus its change in potential energy: dU = m Cp dT + m g dh. Given local thermodynamic equilibrium, then dU = 0, and we solve for
dT/dh = -g/Cp
This is the dry adiabatic lapse rape. If we factor in latent heat release from ubiquitous water vapor, then we arrive at the environmental lapse rate of -6.5K/km.
Thus: the thermal structure of the atmosphere must be that it has a temperature distribution from warmest at the bottom, to coolest at the top. This is the natural state of a gas in a gravitational field.
A mathematical question is: where must the average state of an ensemble occur if the state of said ensemble is sequentially distributed along a direction? By definition of average, mathematically, the average state of the ensemble cannot be found at an extremity of the ensemble, but must be found around “the middle”. No matter what state we expect for the average, we cannot find that state at an extremity, i.e., at the bottom of the atmosphere. The bottom of the atmosphere represents only an extremely small sample of the entire air column, and in fact must be the warmest part of the air column. The expected average temperature of the Earth is -18C, and thus we cannot expect to find this temperature at the warmest part of the atmosphere, but around the middle. Indeed, -18C is found at ~5km altitude, which is around the middle of the troposphere, just as we expect from the mathematical definition of an average. Utilizing the lapse rate, one then arrives at the surface temperature of +15C, that is:
surf_temp = -18C + 6.5C/km * 5km = +15C.
Thus, the thermal structure of the atmosphere is entirely explained and mathematically accounted for by the Laws of Thermodynamics and equations of basic physics, without any reference whatsoever to a radiative greenhouse effect, notwithstanding that the RGHE violates thermodynamic theory and has no empirical demonstration in any case.
SamMich, your comments will be automatically purged without record if you are unable to form a scientifically coherent thought from this point forward.
Quantum properties dominate the fields of atomic and molecular physics. Radiation is quantized such that for a given frequency of radiation, there can be only one value of quantum energy for the photons of that radiation. The energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain quantized values. Transitions between these quantized states occur by the photon processes absorption, emission, and stimulated emission. All of these processes require that the photon energy given by the Planck relationship is equal to the energy separation of the participating pair of quantum energy states.
“The ‘greenhouse effect’ is sheer nonsense backed by nothing. If more CO2 causes a warming then show us the paper which measures it and attributes it to CO2. Don’t bother looking there isn’t one.” Dr. Ian Holmes, Climatologist
People who make claims like – “Your definition of heat is much too restrictive. WE define heat as the thermal radiation which can come from an icecube, and that this must be absorbed by any other body, and therefore indeed a cold substance can make a hotter object increase in temperature via radiation, because this is about energy, not your restrictive definition of heat to which radiation doesn’t apply” – are stupid beyond belief !
Pictet, a competent scientist, unlike all of these simpleton buffoons, demolished their stupid interpretations of reality more than 2 centuries ago !!!
People like so-called PhD qualified sceptics are barely above paramecia on the IQ scale.
Nice to see you Rosco!
Well said, Rosco. This insanity that all energy is absorbed and therefore must increase the T is redefining physics to fit a climate science narrative.
These ill-educated fuckwits are totally at odds with Einstein, Planck and virtually any physicist with any understanding.
From Young & Freedman University Physics –
“In Einstein’s picture, an individual photon arriving at the surface in Fig. 38.1a or 38.2 is absorbed by a single electron. This energy transfer is an all-or-nothing process, in contrast to the continuous transfer of energy in the wave theory of light; the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all. The electron can escape from the surface only if the energy it acquires is greater than the work function . Thus photoelectrons will be ejected only if , or .
Einstein’s postulate therefore explains why the photoelectric effect occurs only for frequencies greater than a minimum threshold frequency. This postulate is also consistent with the observation that greater intensity causes a greater photocurrent (Fig. 38.4).”
Note – “This energy transfer is an all-or-nothing process, in contrast to the continuous transfer of energy in the wave theory of light; the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all.”
Albert Einstein – “All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the question, “What are light quanta?” Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself.”
They are deluded fuckwits !
Joseph…..The point that SamMich doesnt understand is that in order for there to be an increase in temperature then there HAS to be a tranfer of heat…….. The presence of an atmosphere CANNOT result in higher temperatures for the Earths surface unless there IS heat transfer…….Hes totally confused!!!
It really is that way…
The “Birth” of modern peer review used by climate science.
Except climate science uses the peer review as the “evidence” and “experimentation”.
This guy is not native English speaking so not sure what he is trying to state.
“for a molecule of CO2- Q is in vibrational energy which gets converted to translational energy in N2 which is lost as work against gravity. Hence delta U =0”
Now I think he is saying (?) is any IR intercepted by CO2 is simply lost in collisions. Hence the internal energy always goes back to zero [which is because it ejects that energy]. Which I think is what he means by gravity is the lapse rate and the adiabatic processes.
He is a PhD in molecular chemistry so he does understand vibrational/translational kinetic energy transfer (apparently).
He did show a graph which shows it takes around 0.1 ms (milliseconds)/100 microseconds to re-radiate IR absorbed by CO2 (or scattered not sure which?).
“It looks like the case creates a legal gray area, it’s not as bad as what the guy was saying but it does open a really scary loophole that could lead to what he said coming to pass. Basically, in 2012 the supreme court said that while DNA is not patentable because it is naturally occurring, cDNA (complimentary DNA), which is modified DNA, can be patented and used as intellectual property. In that case the supreme court officially stated that DNA that is modified via something like CRISPR or mRNA gene editing technology is patentable. However, the court never applied that logic to humans, transhumanism, legal status of personhood, etc. So the case doesn’t say that vaccinated people are no longer human, but the supreme court has said that modified DNA is patentable, so it’s possible that at some point in the future a mega biotech corporation could bring some sort of intellectual property lawsuit against someone on this basis and the supreme court would have a precedent to rule in the biotech company’s favor.”
It’s all about contract law. Even if you don’t read or know about the contract and legal consequences that goes along with your use of something, the fact that you use it is “de-facto” (?) acceptance of the terms of the contract.
So yes, for sure, absolutely where they’re going with this is ownership of your body. THEY own your body, not you, not your soul, etc.
You should do a post on this sometime or never.
Alt link if Odysee doesn’t work.
This person’s vote is worth the same as mine.
Unless it’s a skit. I can’t tell anymore.
Imagine: The Big Bang, the formation of galaxies, the Milky Way in the sky, the burning stars, planetary evolution, geological time spans and geographic development, the struggle for life, survival, reproduction:
It’s all for pharma companies to make money off of every single person. That’s all that the universe amounts to…is a place for people to make money and gain control through deceit, lies, subterfuge, and induced and carefully crafted mass retardation.
All that the universe is worth is you taking a useless drug to make money for some useless company. If you don’t do it, you don’t belong in the universe, and the universe will kill you for it.
What a waste.
It really does just seem like a bizarre waste.
This is all we’re here for? For people to make money off us via of institutionalized flat Earth theory; for people to make money off of us via hijacking our own immune system; and then that’s it, that’s all that’s needed for total control, forever. Most of us are just in a slave class, and we have some seemingly alien presence ruling over us to extract wealth from us forever, not for any other purpose than that it can be done, that they can extract wealth this way, not that it ever leads to anything other than a permanent status quo of a stasis of wealth extraction under pretexts which are 100% retarded. We just live in retardation, forever, waiting for the universe to wind down over the next few billion years.
“In a world that denigrates honor, mocks all that is great, despises strength & intelligence, classifies masculinity as toxic and womanhood as meaningless, a world that wants you and your descendants dead, your ancestors wiped from the historical record – why are you all still concerned with looking like the good guys?
In a world like this, villainy is the only thing that makes sense. Time to embrace it.”
“You’ve apparently never encountered the Postma cult.”
Hilarious. This guys acts like Potholer, insufferable.
Is that from the WUWT link?
Oh yes, we’re a cult because we refer to the mathematically defined First Law of Thermodynamics, and the mathematically defined definition of heat, and we stop there, since we have no justification for arbitrarily declaring that these definitions are “too restrictive” for us. Yes, that makes us a cult.
But when you allow yourself to come up with new definitions which contradict the old definitions, this is perfect reason.
Is it better to serve in heaven, or rule in hell?
They prefer the latter.
Do you think claiming the universe is around 14 billion years old silly?
Looks like it is obviously much older.
Simply no way our Galaxy is millions of years old that seems like a year or a decade in universe time. Even a planet a million years old is considered young.
That was one theory for Venus being so hot was it was a younger planet but that seems unlikely.
Yah I’m not down with that fellow. First problem – he’s obese and disgusting looking. Second, basic astronomy, most of astronomy, has no political or monetary motive.
However I will absolutely and lovingly acknowledge that given that we have flat earth in modern physics, then who fn knows about anything at this point.
One might say that just because one field makes a mistake, that’s no reason to question everything else with hair brained wondering.
HOWEVER, the scale of this mistake (flat earth climate science) and its ubiquitous reach and belief across the disciplines definitely puts us to the point of simply letting everything go and starting over completely, hopefully with no knowledge or influence from what came before.
My point he argued for ever was that only by a change in emissivity can the surface retain more heat. Which was a simple reference to one of your comments which I quote a few hence the “cult” label. I carpet bombed Twitter with “Postma Posts” for three days straight pissed them off like you would not believe. Man that was a fun weekend.
I’ll Tweet you your post he’s been arguing over like a child.
This is the “Cult” commentor, John Crowley.
Sorry could you delete that hate how Twitter does that.
This guy thinks he’s a physics expert.
This guy is an old crank physicist turned activist like Dr. Strong.
UVMeter commented on your latest Twitter post, good guy.
I found it! This is the comment they hated (one of many).
Does Trapping Running Make Running Run Faster?
“Finally, if one wishes to discuss “trapping”, then we should discuss the trapping of radiant thermal emission which originates from a surface. The ability for a surface to emit is called “emissivity”. Emissivity is a natural property of a surface and cannot be changed remotely. However, if an object does have low emissivity, then indeed its ability to thermally radiate energy is “trapped”, and the object thus raises in temperature to the point at which needs to given an energy supply to it.”
I long for the old days when a Yellow Fever shot just gave you mild symptoms for a few days.
I think he is saying that our galaxy is 13.6 billion years old, but that is probably average. Not the oldest.
So then the universe must actually be older and the big bang theory is heavily flawed.
Everytime they make an AI it’s racist and sexist lol
Any computer system is based on 1+1=2, else the code and circuits don’t work. Any system based on 1+1=2 will eventually tell the truth, because 1+1=2 is true.
They’ll have to write if statements for every “toxic” truth to hide it…but then it’s no longer AI, and the system won’t compute at all.
I like him. Another interesting one. Space can’t expand or contract, but the universe is expanding.
@CD – looking around Twitter a bit – having a difficult time finding much to interact with that I’ve been mentioned in, etc. I likely don’t know how to use it…
Twitter is hard to maneuver now for me, anyway. Was super easy before, they commented, you got notifications and you replied. Most of the time I’m not even getting any notifications and I have to hunt for them manually. Lots of third party helps for Twitter that wasn’t there before. Can’t edit your own comments which is done on purpose to “cancel” people they don’t like with an error in the post.
You need to get into it when the “physics experts” are commenting together like Tom, Crowley, James West and some of the other morons. That’s when it gets fun.
Good evening Australia
Tom is ready to teach you physics…well his version anyway.
Hah. Who, where?
He responded to you guess it’s not showing up?
Temperature is different than energy. Temperature is a measurement of kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) and since mass is not transferred between objets in an elastic collision, there is a difference between the transmission of radiated energy and conduction. The reason there is no temperature in space is because there is no mass. There is energy traveling between the sun and the Earth that is undetected by a thermometer.
In collisions (conduction) the transfer of energy is governed by the conservation of momentum (M1V1 + M2V2 = MiV3 = M2V4). It doesn’t matter what the masses of the objects are since they remain the same and energy (V^2) will flow from the object with greater velocity to the object with less energy. Therefore if the difference in masses is great enough it is possible for an object with less kinetic energy (cooler) to transfer energy (heat) to an object with more kinetic energy.
Herb, we’ve been through this already. Your definition of temperature is NOT correct. Hence your argument doesn’t follow.
Temperature is not the kinetic energy of a moving object.
Love this reference to Baudrillard
Looks like someone spent a lot of time on this.
^ here is the whole pdf
“COVID CRIMINAL NETWORK HAS BEEN MAPPED OUT AND EXPOSED! SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE! zapboom
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.”
I bet Robert would want to see this if he hasn’t already.
Agreed. A thermometer does not measure the kinetic energy of the molecules striking it but the momentum of the objects colliding with it. A barometer does not measure the weight the molecules above it but the momentum of those molecules. How can a less dense warm air mass have greater weight per unit area (barometric pressure) than a denser cool air mass comprised of the same molecules? The thermometer is inaccurate at measuring the energy of a gas (the atmosphere) because as the energy of the molecules change the number of molecules (mass) also changes, 2 variables. The only way to compare the energy at different altitudes is by using the universal gas law, not a thermometer.
What is the point of your comments, Herb? You’re not saying anything. This is the old bot-semantics waste of time schtick, as we’ve seen recently.
Turkish man fired for not getting jabbed.
O, I also have an important service announcement. Whatever you do, don’t pour quick drying cement down the drains of businesses that coerce their employees into getting vaccinated.
Because that would be illegal.
LOL not great for laundry mate either.
So do you feel smarter talking to Tom lol.
He has nothing to say.
These cops got to be stopped.
Alt link (https://files.catbox.moe/dbgdes.mp4)
“Arab man gets 18 months jail in Israel, for not telling a Jewish woman that he isn’t Jewish during consensual sex.”
Yes, this is real.
Example of malevolent propaganda.
Pingback: Thermodynamics 101: Socrates Debunks Climate Alarm Science | Climate of Sophistry
A comment on “Your definition of heat is much too restrictive. WE define heat as the thermal radiation which can come from an icecube, and that this must be absorbed by any other body……….. “.
Two trucks pull one trailer on a level road, each truck with its own attachment to the trailer. One truck pulls at 10 km/h, the other at 5 km/h. Where does the energy from the 5 km/h truck go? It’s certainly not helping pulling the trailer!
I almost spit my beer reading this gem:
“WE define heat as the thermal radiation which can come from an icecube, and that this must be absorbed by any other body, and therefore indeed a cold substance can make a hotter object increase in temperature via radiation.”
Sorry, but science cannot be served by creating di novo definitions just to fit a politocal agenda. Science is only served when we use standard definitions which are both as specific as possible, and rigidly defined mathematically.
The introduction sentence in my copy of J.P. Holman’s “Heat Transfer” states quite clearly,
“Heat transfer is that science which seeks to predict the energy transfee which may take place between material bodies as a result of a temperature difference. Thermodynamics teaches that this energy transfer is defined as heat.”
Heat is therefore a transfer of energy. Energy is transfered when there is a temperature difference. The rate of transfer varies with conditions and methods, but the direction of transfer is always in one direction: from the higher temperature body to the lower temperature body.
Temperature can best be described as T = ∂U/∂S, which is a more generalized mathematical treatment that includes the contribution of entropy – something often overlooked by the climate zealots (and a few people in the comments).
Always a pleasure reading your posts Joseph.
Good to see you Ken.
Boomie add this to your list…
“Australia Under Attack by Rockefeller Funded Globalised Police”
The Rockefeller Foundation went full green right before this push for vax.
“Covid Camps” are starting to be formed, China already has them. This is starting to sound familiar. FEMA Camps, Covid Camps, Concertation Camps…
Concentration Camps. Auto correct and poor near eyesight are not my friends.
Joe, of course your comparison of earth temperatures to lunar temperatures is a distraction from the main point, which is whether the greenhouse effect violates the laws of physics as you claim. There are many variables which affect the temperatures of the earth and the moon, so your claim that the difference between the two is disproof of any particular law of physics is ridiculous.
Even though we are discussing the physics of greenhouse effect, many of your arguments have been designed to distract from the main point: for example, the lack of an exact steady state on earth, and the comparison of the earth to the moon, which has much lower thermal inertia. It’s easy to see these are distractions because we can examine a simple system (the green plate) which does in fact reach a steady state, and still exhibits a greenhouse effect. But you would rather focus the discussion on irrelevant features of extremely complicated systems so you can create a million distractions rather than discuss the actual relevant physics.
Anyway I’m sure you will remove this comment because you’re frightened of a real discussion.
@SamMich 2021/09/28 at 10:19 am
Your green plate is a thought experiment where you assume the results you desire. Of course I’ve also openly presented the analysis of the green plate, using the actual equations of thermodynamics, and have shown that there is no GHE possible.
I have absolutely addressed the simple, non-complex situation, ad-infinitum, you big fat liar.
And yes, the moon gets way hotter than the Earth, with no GHE. Seem the atmosphere keeps the Earth cooler, not hotter.
Why the temperatures lower at night? Because of the SUN ?
This shows the main factor for HEATING the planet is the SUN.
“Albert Einstein – “All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the question, “What are light quanta?” Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself.””
Not so much anymore today. From my prior writings:
Although it is far beyond the scope of this paper, the sinusoidal ‘waves’ of photons are not actually waves… they’re spirals.
The first image above shows the real (cosine… labeled ‘Re’ in the image) and imaginary (sine… labeled ‘Im’ in the image) components of an electromagnetic ‘wave’. When viewed in line with its direction of travel, it will appear to be a circle, and when viewed orthogonal to its direction of travel, it will appear to be a sinusoid, when in reality it’s a spiral.
This is because a sinusoid is a circular function.
You’ll note the peak amplitude of the sinusoid is analogous to the radius of the circle, the peak-to-peak amplitude is analogous to the diameter of the circle, and the frequency of the sinusoid is analogous to the rotational rate of the circle. You’ll further note the circumference of the circle is equal to 2 pi radians, and the wavelength of a sinusoid is equal to 2 pi radians, so the wavelength of the sinusoid is analogous to the circumference of the circle.
Thus the magnetic field and electric field (oscillating in quadrature) of a photon is a circle geometrically transformed into a spiral by the photon’s movement through space-time. This is why all singular photons are circularly polarized either parallel or antiparallel to their direction of motion. This is a feature of their being massless and hence having no rest frame (if a photon had a rest frame, no rest mass and no momentum equals nothing, so massless particles must remain in motion), which precludes their exhibiting the third state expected of a spin-1 particle (for a spin-1 particle at rest, it has three spin eigenstates: +1, -1, 0, along the z axis… no rest frame means no 0-spin eigenstate). A macroscopic electromagnetic wave is the tensor product of many singular photons, and thus may be linearly or elliptically polarized if all singular photons comprising the macroscopic electromagnetic wave are not circularly polarized in the same direction.
This is also why photons do not really travel in a ‘straight line’ (the path of least space)… they travel along the path of least time. Since invariant-mass objects such as planets and stars warp (expand) space (and thus slow down time), this causes light to ‘bend around’ large celestial objects (the cause of gravitational lensing), which is the phenomenon which originally substantiated Einstein’s Relativity theory.
For a practical lab experiment, go outside on a sunny day and stretch out a Slinky so its shadow falls upon a surface perpendicular to the incoming sunlight… you’ll see the shadow of the spiral of the Slinky appears as a sinusoid. Now turn the Slinky so its axis is aligned parallel to the incoming light such that the light is falling through the center of it, you’ll see the shadow of the spiral of the Slinky appears as a circle. Our oscilloscopes show us a shadow of reality because they can only account for the electric field and not the magnetic field of electromagnetic radiation.
The above ties into vacuum polarization (due to the high charge density in the vicinity of the nucleus of an atom) creating a geometrical transform of resonant scalar quantum vacuum wave modes to a circular (spherical, given the DOF) orbital path of an atom’s bound electron(s) (ie: the bound electron ‘spirals’ around the nucleus, (acted upon by the Lorentz force of the EM interaction between bound electron and nucleal proton(s) and sustained by energy from the quantum vacuum), which is why a bound electron must have an integer number of de Broglie waves in its orbit (the underlying reason for quantization of energy and hence the basis of Quantum Mechanics) or it sets up a destructive-interference orbit which lowers electron orbital radius, which is how and why electron orbital radius falls to ground state from a higher excited state when the excitation energy sustaining it in that higher orbital is removed). This is what feeds energy to a bound electron to prevent it ‘spiraling in’ to the oppositely-charged proton(s) in the nucleus. At its ground state, the energy obtained from the quantum vacuum exactly equals the energy emitted via virtual photons (magnetism… which all invariant-mass matter exhibits (usually diamagnetism, although certain electron valence configurations allow ferromagnetism to override the underlying diamagnetism)), as Boyer, Haisch and Ibison, Puthoff and NASA showed.
“We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom.”
“The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the ‘orbiting’ electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.”
This ties into the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics (2LoT)… a bound electron is always trying to emit a photon to achieve a lower energy state, but the energy sustaining the bound electron in its current state prevents the photon being emitted because energy can only flow from a higher to a lower energy density region. When that excitation energy is removed, a photon can be emitted, electron orbit no longer has an integer number of de Broglie waves, a destructive-interference orbit is thus set up, and the electron falls to a lower state in which there are an integer number of de Broglie waves in the orbit. At ground state, energy flows from the quantum vacuum to sustain the electron in its ground state orbital as it emits Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons (a point charge undergoing acceleration (in this case angular acceleration) in relation to its electric field will emit Larmor radiation), which it does because the quantum vacuum is anisotropic (it fluctuates) under vacuum polarization in the high charge density in the vicinity of the nucleus of an atom. Thus 2LoT holds even in the quantum realm.
This ties into the very underpinnings of the meta-stability of invariant-mass matter (and hence the continued existence of the universe as we know it) and provides insight into the connection between classical and quantum theory.
SamMich sounds an awful lot like the kook I’ve been drop-kicking for 3 years straight on CFACT… I’ve got a long list of topics which he’s been wrong about (with links to his own words and me proving him wrong)… because every time he’s definitively proven wrong, he shifts the topic of conversation and continues blathering.
He’s denied every single fundamental physical law I’ve thrown at him; he claims that 2LoT violations “can happen quite readily” (his words) and that’s the cause of CAGW (when proven wrong on that (there has never been an empirically-observed macroscopic 2LoT violation, nor will there ever be), he claimed that 2LoT violations can occur especially easily at the quantum scale… also proven wrong… there is an entire subset of law, all making up the macroscopic 2LoT, which must be adhered to for any quantum change of state to take place );
…and the form of S-B equation he uses allows him to claim that wrapping an ice cube in aluminum foil (the foil at 600 K) will warm the aluminum foil as the ice cube cools to 0 K! Yeah. He’s making exactly that sort of claim right now on CFACT, that a high emissivity object of lower temperature will radiatively warm a low emissivity object of higher temperature, because he just can’t seem to grasp that emissivity is akin to resistance… a 12 V battery with a 10kΩ resistor won’t be charged by a 1.5 V battery with a 1Ω resistor no matter what.
That’s why I analogized thermodynamics to electrical theory and put it into a circuit simulator…
… he still can’t grasp it.
He starts out sounding like he knows what he’s talking about, but even a cursory investigation of his drivel shows that he’s generally diametrically opposite to reality. Then he starts getting nasty, claiming you’re lying, a coward, uneducated, etc. Then he starts taking your quotes (and the quotes of the greats of science such as Planck, Clausius, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman) out of context, claiming that those out-of-context quotes bolster his incorrectitude. I’ve utterly destroyed him on all of his out-of-context Planck, Clausius, Maxwell, Einstein and Feynman quotes, and I’ve got them archived… because no matter how many times his bafflegab is proven wrong, the kook never learns and he never stops… almost as if he’s not smart enough to think up some other tactic. LOL
He’s persistent… I drop-kicked him so many times on one CFACT thread that the page literally stopped working. LOL
The pseudonyms he’s used in the past:
‘Dave Burton’ – he hijacked the real-life name of a climate skeptic
‘Immortal600’ – he hijacked the pseudonym of a climate skeptic
‘Clyde’ – he hijacked my old pseudonym
‘evenminded’ – a misnomer on all counts. LOL
‘looksquirrel101’ – on StackExchange
There are plenty of others.
If you see him bleating about physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, PhD, it’s because Anderson proved him wrong 3 years ago, and he’s still butthurt over it.
He claimed that at thermodynamic equilibrium, photons are emitted and absorbed. Anderson proved that if that were the case, for a cavity at thermodynamic equilibrium, intervening space energy density would be doubled and thus Stefan’s Law, 1LoT and 2LoT would be violated. The poor kook never got over being proven wrong. He even attempted to dox Anderson and do economic damage to his materials analysis laboratory.