The Emission Height Fallacy

This is another one of those “the greenhouse effect doesn’t work the way we’ve always said it does, it works this new way now” schticks.

If you’re logical, you may imagine that just as how the original climate alarmist backradiation “greenhouse effect” was debunkable, so is this one, the reason being that  these arguments are not predicated upon any underlying fundamental truth, but are created sophistry for purpose of the hijack of science and politics. Too bad scientists don’t care about logic, because if they did, these schemes wouldn’t get multiple chances. I mean, how many times does something need to change definitions before one acknowledges that nothing is being defined at all!?

A reader named Jim Fish sent me the following screencap from a Twitter thread he had been engaging with:

Aside from the gaffe of “heat is effectively emitted to space” which indicates a fundamental lack of knowledge of thermodynamics, this is all about Dr. Richard Lindzen and what made him a skeptic – the emission height increase is the “tropospheric hotspot” issue, where if greenhouse gas (GHG) theory theory were true, then the troposphere should be increasing in temperature in a tell-tale fashion.

But it isn’t.

There was/is no tropospheric hotspot, and therefore the emission height argument is bunk. Whoever uses the emission height argument is themselves contradicting the other climate scientists who use the backradiation or slowed cooling argument for the mechanism of the “greenhouse effect”.

However, what is it which is fundamentally, structurally wrong with the argument, in a similar sense to how the backradiation argument is predicated upon flat Earth theory and cold sunshine? (Of course, the emission height argument for climate alarmism is still founded in the fundamental error of climate science of treating the Sun as unable to create the weather upon a flat Earth.)

Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth (material additions are negligible), then if the effective emission height increased you would have the same effective temperature of -18C but now emitting over a larger surface area and thus emitting more total energy. That would therefore violate conservation of energy because there is no additional total energy to emit given that the solar energy input is constant. Remember, these people are so stupid that they believe that flux is what you use to conserve energy, and so as long as you have -18C or 240 W/m^2, then it doesn’t matter what size of sphere the emission comes from because 240 W/m^2 “in” equals 240 W/m^2 out. But that it is not at all a statement of energy conservation. Remember what Willis Eschenback said about this incongruity created with differently-sized spheres though of identical flux emission? That this “only creates rounding errors.”

Here are the options for the emission height fallacy (EHF…it’s official):

a) same lapse rate, emission occurs at higher effective altitude but lower temperature: this therefore doesn’t affect the surface temperature, and so the argument here is moot. The atmosphere is fixed in depth and the lapse rate stays the same, the emission just gets pushed up to a higher altitude (larger shell) and lower temperature – this therefore has no effect on the surface temperature. The effective temperature of total energy emission would still remain constant here too.

b) same lapse rate, emission occurs at higher effective altitude and same effective temperature: this violates conservation of energy. Emission is moved to a larger shell, but at the same temperature as the smaller previous shell; thus, more energy is being emitted than before and thus conservation of energy is violated.

c) steeper lapse rate: disproven by derivation of lapse rate, and GHG’s do not change the lapse rate

Thus, the emission height argument doesn’t hold water – that’s not what GHG’s do, and they can’t do that, because if they did, you would get a violation of conservation of energy. Option a) is the only possibility that could occur due to increased absorption and scattering of IR energy from CO2…but it’s benign, and is consistent with no tropospheric hotspot and no surface warming.

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to The Emission Height Fallacy

  1. Pingback: The Emission Height Fallacy | ajmarciniak

  2. Rudi K says:

    It is worth commenting that most of the IR emissions are generated by the cloud layer, which covers 2/3 of the surface and which is already at a high and cold altitude. Cloud temperatures can be related to the surface via their altitudes and the lapse rate. But the greenhouse effect above clouds is small and rather insensitive to the low densities of GHGs above. Most analyses of the effect of GHGs focus on the clear sky effect, presumably because of the difficulties of adequately parameterising clouds. So the analyses over estimate the effects by a wide margin.

  3. Pablo says:

    The idea that atmospheric radiation is responsible for an average surface temperature 33k more than this effective emission height temperature is so strange when variations of deep ocean warmth given by the sun and salinity can change everything from the Cretaceous to the El Nino and La Nina of todays today’s ice age.

    Bob Tisdale on El Nino and La Nina.

  4. Alan says:

    Isn’t the nonsense in this argument the “effective temperature” concept. The atmosphere emits at many temperatures. It is like the average temperature of the earth. There is no average, just a range of temperatures with a huge difference between the max and min on every day. It makes concerns about a small variation in the annual average look meaningless. Then we have the addition of temperatures to show the greenhouse effect.

    The earth’s average is said to be 15C and this comes from the sun heating the surface to -18C and 33C from the greenhouse effect. I’d like to see an experiment with water (ice) at -18 added to water at 33 and proving when combined they produce water at 15C. Temperature cannot be added, and the alarmists fail to understand that energy is conserved, not temperature.

    I recently found this work by Andy May https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2020/11/27/ocean-temperature-update/ He claims that the oceans contain 99.97% of the thermal energy on the surface and he provides a spreadsheet showing the calculation. Anybody without a science background could find how to calculate the thermal energy in water and air and how to calculate the heat transfer between them with an assumed temperature difference. Just assume the same volume of air and water in contact at one surface and no heat loss from other surfaces and work out the temperature of the air needed to raise the water by 1 degree. End of climate alarmism.

  5. CD Marshall says:

    Coolng/warming cycles are hitting in 35 year periods.
    1944-1979 cooling.
    1980-2015 warming
    2015-2022+ cooling.
    If the pattern fits we’ll be cooling for 30 more years.

  6. CD Marshall says:

    So a 30 year cycle with a 5 year transitional period?

  7. CD Marshall says:

    Joe I was talking to a guy who claimed they found the hotspot it was like a few degrees warmer at one specific altitude of the trop according to radiosonde. Skeptical Science prob did an article on it.

  8. MP says:

    If emission height by co2 worked there would be perpetual energy machines

    Symply by building many miles high greenhouses, filled with co2, and tapping the massive energy at the bottom

  9. Barry says:

    Mp. If it worked every greenhouse that theyadd co2 into should be self heating. You would be able to adjust temp by controlling the mix. Don’t tell anyone I haven’t worked out the patent application just yet.

  10. Barry says:

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL_f53ZEJxp8TtlOkHwMV9Q
    This is huge,if we can win this it might bring down the Trudeau govt.

  11. Wow, I can’t believe it’s been five years since I did this graphic:

  12. CD Marshall says:

    Alex has stalked me from this site and is on Twitter. Just some of his comments:
    ” If the center of mass of the atmosphere is not changing, then for every kilogram of air that travels below that center there must be a kilogram of air that travels above that center. That is irrefutable.”

  13. Zelator says:

    Hi Joe, is there any news regarding the publishing date of your new book, and will there be a kindle version? Looking forward to it.

    Cheers Z

  14. Joseph E Postma says:

    It will be on Amazon in paperback and Kindle, and apparently hardcover is an option now too.

    Struggling greatly with a few of the boring parts. Some really, really excellent analysis and info otherwise though in the rest of the book. The boring part is copying over all of the retarded peer-review comments from the AMS, and other journals.

    Perhaps I will ask for final edit helps from anyone who would like to help. Maybe in a week or so, if I can get down to it and finish. Need to find the flow-zone again to get it done! Too many distractions right now.

  15. Pablo says:

    Help at hand for the flow-zone.

  16. Trudeau calls them a “small fringe”…oh but we must make laws to protect and promote trannies in schools to kids for human rights. Some are more equal than others.

  17. boomie789 says:

    They call this the “Enhanced Greenhouse Effect” I think. That guy with the accent I linked before does a good video on it. I remember posting it before. Who was that…

    Here he is

    Ned Nikolov.

    Skip to about 20mins to get to the “Enhanced Greenhouse Effect”. Crazy how the alarmist sophist just make up crazy nonsense stacked on nonsense. Bewildered me first I heard of it. I don’t remember any alarmist I’ve ever argued with bringing it up though.

  18. boomie789 says:

    Truckers are disproportionately based.

  19. Pablo says:

    As I see it,
    Atmospheric radiation doesn’t warm anything, it slows the speed of radiative cooling from the surface. During the day over land it tends to keep the actual solar heating of around 60ºC very close to the surface ( below eye level measuring) which stimulates instability for convection to occur which cools the surface and warms the boundary layer. Above that level, latent heating dominates. Over the oceans only a surface temperature of around 30ºC can stimulate deep convection providing the air above is cooling enough by radiation to space for super adiabatic conditions to occur.
    At night, over land, atmospheric radiation limits the rate of radiative cooling of the surface to well above the average tropospheric temperature of minus 18ºC. which it would reach very quickly without radiative gases in our atmosphere regardless of the ambient air temperature which can be well above actual surface temperatures at night.
    Over the oceans none of this applies. Solar heating warms to a depth of 100 metres but for deep ocean temperatures the long term accumulation of heat via the global ratio of warm saline sources to cool saline sources is what determines whether we are in an ice age or not.

  20. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    CD Marshall wrote:
    “Alex has stalked me from this site and is on Twitter. Just some of his comments:
    ‘If the center of mass of the atmosphere is not changing, then for every kilogram of air that travels below that center there must be a kilogram of air that travels above that center. That is irrefutable.'”

    https://www.pdas.com/atmosTable1SI.html

    Calculate the center of mass of the atmosphere from that. Calculate the volume of a 2 km layer at the surface (m^3), the density (kg m-3) of that layer, and thus the mass of that layer (kg); then iterate through layers upward and figure out the balance point. It should be about at the 500 mb level, or approximately 18 km.

    Or one could just look up the altitude of the 500 mb level, but I want to prove it mathematically, so here goes…

    Let’s do the math:
    = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – =
    The average radius of the earth is 6378 km (equator) + 6357 km (poles) / 2 = 6367.5 km.

    6367.5 – 6369.5 km (0 – 2 km):
    1019328505800000000 m^3 volume; 1.225 kg m-3 density; 1248677419605000000 kg mass

    6369.5 – 6371.5 km (2 – 4 km):
    1019968837800000000 m^3 volume; 1.007 kg m-3 density; 1027108619664600000 kg mass

    6371.5 – 6373.5 km (4 – 6 km):
    1020609370800000000 m^3 volume; 0.8193 kg m-3 density; 836185257496440000 kg mass

    6373.5 – 6375.5 km (6 – 8 km):
    1021250104900000000 m^3 volume; 0.6601 kg m-3 density; 674127194244490000 kg mass

    6375.5 – 6377.5 km (8 – 10 km):
    1021891040100000000 m^3 volume; 0.5258 kg m-3 density; 537310308884580000 kg mass

    6377.5 – 6379.5 km (10 – 12 km):
    1022532176300000000 m^3 volume; 0.4135 kg m-3 density; 422817054900050000 kg mass

    6379.5 – 6381.5 km (12 – 14 km):
    1023173513600000000 m^3 volume; 0.3119 kg m-3 density; 319127818891840000 kg mass

    6381.5 – 6383.5 km (14 – 16 km):
    1023815051900000000 m^3 volume; 0.2279 kg m-3 density; 233327450328010000 kg mass

    6383.5 – 6385.5 km (16 – 18 km):
    1024456791400000000 m^3 volume; 0.1665 kg m-3 density; 170572055768100000 kg mass

    6385.5 – 6387.5 km (18 – 20 km):
    1025098731800000000 m^3 volume; 0.1216 kg m-3 density; 124652005786880000 kg mass

    6387.5 – 6389.5 km (20 – 22 km):
    1025740873400000000 m^3 volume; 0.08891 kg m-3 density; 91198621053994000 kg mass

    6389.5 – 6391.5 km (22 – 24 km):
    1026383216000000000 m^3 volume; 0.06451 kg m-3 density; 66211981264160000 kg mass

    6391.5 – 6393.5 km (24 – 26 km):
    1027025759600000000 m^3 volume; 0.04694 kg m-3 density; 48208589155624000 kg mass

    6393.5 – 6395.5 km (26 – 28 km):
    1027668504400000000 m^3 volume; 0.03426 kg m-3 density; 35207922960744000 kg mass

    6395.5 – 6397.5 km (28 – 30 km):
    1028311450100000000 m^3 volume; 0.02508 kg m-3 density; 25790051168508000 kg mass

    6397.5 – 6399.5 km (30 – 32 km):
    1028954597000000000 m^3 volume; 0.01841 kg m-3 density; 18943054130770000 kg mass

    6399.5 – 6401.5 km (32 – 34 km):
    1029597944900000000 m^3 volume; 0.01355 kg m-3 density; 13951052153395000 kg mass

    6401.5 – 6403.5 km (34 – 36 km):
    1030241493900000000 m^3 volume; 0.009887 kg m-3 density; 10185997650189300 kg mass

    6403.5 – 6405.5 km (36 – 38 km):
    1030885243900000000 m^3 volume; 0.007257 kg m-3 density; 7481134214982300 kg mass

    6405.5 – 6407.5 km (38 – 40 km):
    1031529195000000000 m^3 volume; 0.005366 kg m-3 density; 5535185660370000 kg mass

    6407.5 – 6409.5 km (40 – 42 km):
    1032173347200000000 m^3 volume; 0.003995 kg m-3 density; 4123532522064000 kg mass

    6409.5 – 6411.5 km (42 – 44 km):
    1032817700400000000 m^3 volume; 0.002995 kg m-3 density; 3093289012698000 kg mass

    6411.5 – 6413.5 km (44 – 46 km):
    1033462254700000000 m^3 volume; 0.002259 kg m-3 density; 2334591233367300 kg mass

    6413.5 – 6415.5 km (46 – 48 km):
    1034107010000000000 m^3 volume; 0.001714 kg m-3 density; 1772459415140000 kg mass

    6415.5 – 6417.5 km (48 – 50 km):
    1034751966400000000 m^3 volume; 0.001317 kg m-3 density; 1362768339748800 kg mass

    6417.5 – 6419.5 km (50 – 52 km):
    1035397123900000000 m^3 volume; 0.001027 kg m-3 density; 1063352846245300 kg mass

    6419.5 – 6421.5 km (52 – 54 km):
    1036042482400000000 m^3 volume; 0.0008055 kg m-3 density; 834532219573200 kg mass

    6421.5 – 6423.5 km (54 – 56 km):
    1036688042000000000 m^3 volume; 0.0006389 kg m-3 density; 662339990033800 kg mass

    6423.5 – 6425.5 km (56 – 58 km):
    1037333802700000000 m^3 volume; 0.0005044 kg m-3 density; 523231170081880 kg mass

    6425.5 – 6427.5 km (58 – 60 km):
    1037979764400000000 m^3 volume; 0.0003962 kg m-3 density; 411247582655280 kg mass

    6427.5 – 6429.5 km (60 – 62 km):
    1038625927100000000 m^3 volume; 0.0003096 kg m-3 density; 321558587030160 kg mass

    6429.5 – 6431.5 km (62 – 64 km):
    1039272291000000000 m^3 volume; 0.0002407 kg m-3 density; 250152840443700 kg mass

    6431.5 – 6433.5 km (64 – 66 km):
    1039918855900000000 m^3 volume; 0.0001860 kg m-3 density; 193424907197400 kg mass

    6433.5 – 6435.5 km (66 – 68 km):
    1040565621900000000 m^3 volume; 0.0001429 kg m-3 density; 148696827369510 kg mass

    6435.5 – 6437.5 km (68 – 70 km):
    1041212588900000000 m^3 volume; 0.0001091 kg m-3 density; 113596293448990 kg mass

    6437.5 – 6439.5 km (70 – 72 km):
    1041859757000000000 m^3 volume; 0.00008281 kg m-3 density; 86276406477170 kg mass

    6439.5 – 6441.5 km (72 – 74 km):
    1042507126100000000 m^3 volume; 0.00006236 kg m-3 density; 65010744383596 kg mass

    6441.5 – 6443.5 km (74 – 76 km):
    1043154696300000000 m^3 volume; 0.00004637 kg m-3 density; 48371083267431 kg mass

    6443.5 – 6445.5 km (76 – 78 km):
    1043802467600000000 m^3 volume; 0.00003430 kg m-3 density; 35802424638680 kg mass

    6445.5 – 6447.5 km (78 – 80 km):
    1044450439900000000 m^3 volume; 0.00002523 kg m-3 density; 26351484598677 kg mass

    6447.5 – 6449.5 km (80 – 82 km):
    1045098613300000000 m^3 volume; 0.00001845 kg m-3 density; 19282069415385 kg mass

    6449.5 – 6451.5 km (82 – 84 km):
    1045746987800000000 m^3 volume; 0.00001341 kg m-3 density; 14023467106398 kg mass

    6451.5 – 6453.5 km (84 – 86 km):
    1046395563300000000 m^3 volume; 0.00000969 kg m-3 density; 10139573008377 kg mass

    6453.5 – 6455.5 km (86 – 88 km):
    1047044339900000000 m^3 volume; 0.000006955 kg m-3 density; 7282193384004.5 kg mass
    = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – =

    The average of all of the masses of the layers comes out to 134866820186729628 kg mass, which is right between:

    6383.5 – 6385.5 km (16 – 18 km):
    170572055768100000 kg mass

    6385.5 – 6387.5 km (18 – 20 km):
    124652005786880000 kg mass

    So the center of mass of the atmosphere is ~18 km.

    Now, where’s the tropopause? Well, it’s just about at that height (it varies with temperature and latitude).

    Now, what happens at the tropopause? Well, that’s where convective energy transport and radiative energy transport balance, so convection no longer transports matter above that ‘limit’, which is why the stratosphere is essentially stratified.

    So ask Alex if he’s claiming that convection occurs above the tropopause and into the stratosphere.

  21. immortal600 says:

    LOL, I responded earlier today.

  22. ashemann says:

    How does 90% of the atmospheric mass being above the tropic’s affect the so called RGHE or LKKK’s math. or co2’s so-called even distribution.

  23. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Got your message, Immortal600, and replied. It’s working.

    So I was looking at the cooling requirements of this house… it has ~660 pounds of air inside it, so if the house was at 85 F and 80% RH, total enthalpy would be ~27727 BTU, and evaporating just a single gallon of water would remove 8092 BTU, so if RH remained the same, that would drop temperature from 85 F to 70 F.

    When I think of the amount of energy used in an HVAC unit, it makes me sick knowing that we can make water boil at ambient temperature without any electricity required. That boiling water pulls energy out of the ambient, cooling it. Yup, boiling water can cool. You just have to be careful not to boil it so hard that it turns to ice.

    Think I’m crazy? LOL

    To reiterate.. that’s boiling water such that it pulls energy out of the environment, to such an extent that the water can turn to ice, and doing so requires no electricity.

    Let’s see who can figure it out…

  24. ashemann says:

    Pressure. ..
    You have to create a low pressure vacuum in a bell jar at room temp removing the steam as the water boils th waters temperature will drop several degrees C as it carries on boiling.

  25. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Ah, but how to create that high vacuum without a vacuum pump?

    Vacuum (” Hg): Boiling Temp (F):
    28.0 79.01
    28.1 76.48
    28.2 73.83
    28.3 71.02
    28.4 68.03
    28.5 64.87
    28.6 61.47
    28.7 57.83
    28.8 53.9
    28.9 49.62
    29.0 44.93
    29.1 39.75
    29.2 33.967
    29.3 27.4
    29.4 19.82
    29.5 10.855

    I can get down to a full 30″ vacuum without a vacuum pump. How do I do it? Anyone?

  26. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    So how does one get a full 30″ Hg (407.85304604592″ H2O) vacuum without a vacuum pump?

    He asks, giving them the answer. LOL

  27. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Ok, here you go:

    The top-right valve (fill valve) is connected to a water supply that has at least ~20 PSI pressure. In this iteration, some electricity is required for the control circuitry and solenoid valves… it can be done manually, but automated is easier. You do not need any external energy to draw the vacuum… gravity does that.

    So you shut the bottom valve, open the vent valve and open the fill valve to fill the tank. Then you shut the vent valve and open the bottom valve to flush air out of the downpipe, then close the fill valve.

    Water will rush down the downpipe and into the bucket (which creates a seal so air can’t glug back up into the evaporator section). The height of the evaporator section is such that the water in the evaporator section will have a strong suction drawn on it by the downpipe, causing it to boil.

    That cools the water. The orange pipes wrapped around the evaporator section are filled with propylene glycol (antifreeze). When it cools, it becomes denser and creates a pressure differential that pushes some of the PG coolant into the radiator (inside the building, at ground level). As the PG absorbs energy in the radiator, it warms and becomes less dense, causing it to rise… this sets up a natural convective flow that doesn’t require any fluid pump. The warmer it is in the building and the cooler the evaporator section is, the stronger this natural convective flow will be.

    To flush the detritus out of the evaporator section (perhaps once a week or so), the controller would open the vent and the drain, then refill as described above.

    The controller would have a means of either measuring temperature near the top of the evaporator section, or of measuring liquid level in the evaporator, and would automatically refill as needed.

    Each gallon evaporated absorbs 8092 BTU, and with sufficient height, it’s easy to get several gallons per hour to evaporate. Even large buildings could use this to reduce their electrical usage and do away with their CFC / HCFC / HFC A/C equipment. Of course, it only works if you’ve got 3 or more stories or a tall enough tower for the evaporator section.

  28. J Cuttance says:

    Rudi K sats “…most of the IR emissions are generated by the cloud layer, which covers 2/3 of the surface and which is already at a high and cold altitude.”
    …yes, cold by human preferences, but warm enough on the Kelvin scale to get rid of the sunny-side thermal enerjons absorbed day-side, presumeably.

  29. CD Marshall says:

    No that is the NASA fake physics, clouds do not “generate” energy. Clouds are not a heat source. These weasels try and confuse you every way they can. In the trenches it can get harder to differentiate unless you are a near genius (like some on here).

    The atmosphere is not a heat source. The troposphere is heated by the Earth’s surface, the upper atmosphere is heated by the Sun. What amount of clouds can be heated directly by the Sun? I don’t know but that would be based on opacity and elevation only, I’m guessing?

    Clouds are noted as insulation and omni-directional insulation would be ideally useless.

  30. CD Marshall says:

    I told Alex the atmosphere is homogenous, stratified and in relative hydrostatic equilibrium. He refused to accept that instead ranting on total potential energy of the atmosphere proves the RGHGE. He claims with his analogy that PE and KE are completely balanced or something like that. He thinks too highly of himself. naturally I mocked him for not taking up the gauntlet and debating Postma on Zoom.

  31. CD Marshall says:

    “Elon Musk has over 71,000,000 followers on Twitter, and he just endorsed the truck convoy…”

  32. J Cuttance says:

    CD I was just making an awkward statement about the earth’s energy budget, apologies for the word salad.

  33. CD Marshall says:

    I wasn’t attacking you bud, really. Just commenting on Rudi’s comment which is presumably based on the NASA information they are putting out where they now claim clouds are sources of energy and part of the radiative forcing trope. I am not one of the near geniuses btw, hence my comment was directed at me as well. That title belongs to those who are actually scientists. Although I do think Robert Kernodle could have gotten a degree if he wanted to.

    Apologies if you felt I was berating you. We are all in this together.

    Cheers 🙂

  34. CD Marshall says:

    Data from individual hospitals does not match the “state data” I sense a fudge in the numbers…
    Hospitalization: Deaths
    NOT fully vaxxed 55,481 16,820
    Fully vaxxed 3,372 804

  35. CD Marshall says:

    That did not work out. (OHIO)
    IN hospitals not vaxxed 55,481 with over 16,000 deaths. Those vaxxed the claims are 3,372 in hospital and 804 deaths.

    Hospital samples confirm more vaxxed in hospital than unvaxxed. Somebody is lying.

  36. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    CD Marshall:
    Hit them with the refrigeration cycle analogy. They probably don’t realize they live inside a giant A/C unit, transporting energy from evaporator to condenser (surface to upper atmosphere). Ask them what happens when an A/C system doesn’t have enough refrigerant, and what happens when one adds the proper amount.

    Nepal wrote:
    “That is a very ingenious device. My only question is, how do you vent the water vapor as it boils?”

    That’s why you set the majority of the evaporator above 408″, so you have a long column of water that can evaporate before boiling stops. It’s not a continuous process, it’s a batch process.

    As to refilling it… the bucket at the bottom should be large enough to capture all of the water that is expelled from the evaporator as the water evaporates and fills the top of the evaporator with water vapor.

    So you’d have control circuitry that measures evaporator vacuum and drain bucket level… as evaporator vacuum drops to a certain threshold (which I’d set at ~28.7″ Hg), the control circuitry would close the bottom valve, open the vent valve, pump any water from the drain bucket back up to the evaporator, then top it off with fresh water until the evaporator is completely full. That flushes any water vapor out of the evaporator.

    Then the vent valve and fill valve is closed and the bottom valve opened, and the process starts again.

    Here’s an updated image:

    I added the pump to push the water from the drain bucket back up to the evaporator in a batch process, as well as a drain bucket drain valve. Periodically, the control circuitry would open the vent valve, open the fill valve, open the bottom valve and open the drain bucket drain valve to flush mineral buildup from the system, then it’d refill the evaporator with fresh water and the process would begin again.

    If you’re in an area with plenty of water and don’t mind wasting it (or you’ve got somewhere useful for that water to go), then the pump and large bucket aren’t needed… just a small bucket to act as a seal for the downpipe.

  37. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Here’s an update: the smaller bucket inside the catchment basin allows one to pump all of the water from the catchment basin back into the evaporator section, then top off the evaporator with fresh water, without breaking the seal on the downpipe.

  38. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Actually, one could use the partial vacuum at the top of the evaporator to lessen the energy consumption of the pump… when evaporator section vacuum falls to its setpoint, close the bottom solenoid valve (pinkish-purple), start the pump and open the pump solenoid valve (darker blue) and pump the catchment basin water back to the evaporator with the partial vacuum assisting to reduce pump head. When catchment basin level drops to a setpoint, close the pump solenoid valve (darker blue), turn off the pump, open the fill solenoid valve (lighter blue), fill for a bit with the remaining small bit of partial vacuum helping to pull fresh water in, when vacuum falls to 0″ Hg, open the vent solenoid valve (gray) and continue filling until a sensor senses that the evaporator section is full. Then close the fill solenoid valve (lighter blue) and vent solenoid valve (gray), open the bottom valve (pinkish-purple), and the process starts again.

  39. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Nepal wrote:
    ” (Rough Calculation: at room temp the saturation vapor pressure is 0.03 atm, then by ideal gas law 1 mol of vapor takes 750 liters. But 1 mol of liquid water is 18 milliliters. 750/.018=40,000 )”

    pV = NRT

    V = NRT / p

    Assume vacuum minimum setpoint is 28.7″ Hg (4402.3057 Pa) where the system cycles through a refill cycle.

    Assume the associated boiling temperature of 57.83 F (287.5 K).

    V (m^3) = 1 (mol) * 8.31446261815324 (J K−1⋅mol−1) * 287.5 (K) / 4402.3057 (Pa) = 0.54299000696817953828149644401115 m^3 / mol

    The atomic mass of water is 18.02 grams per mole. Therefore, one gallon of water contains 210.06724661487236403995560488346 mol / gal.

    210.067 mol / gal * 0.54299 m^3 / mol = 114.06442 m^3 / gallon (vap) = 30132.632 gallons (vap).

    Obviously, if you’ve got a natural spring sitting at least 408″ above your home and flowing at least 500 GPM, you don’t have to worry about wasting the water (it’s going to flow away anyway), and you’ve got your head pressure to refill the evaporator without any energy input on your part. Otherwise, you’re going to need to use a 5 HP (3.728499357911351 kW) low-head high-flow pump (per gallon of water evaporated per hour) to pump the water from the catchment basin back into the evaporator, or you’re going to have to just waste the water expelled due to the boiling. That’s less efficient than an A/C unit, unless you’ve got a natural spring. That’s an EER of only 2.17 (COP of 0.638235) for the pump version. For the natural-spring version, the EER would be (assuming an average of 10 watts for the controller and solenoid valves) 809.2. That’d be a COP of 237.3, because nature is doing the work of moving the water. That’s higher than the theoretical maximum COP of 36.978 (EER of 126.095, under the EER test conditions of 95 F hot reservoir, 80 F cold reservoir) because we’re only looking at the energy we have to pay for (that energy necessary to run the controller and solenoid valves). Nature provides the rest. If we run the controller and solenoids from a solar panel and fill the evaporator from a natural spring, the COP and EER go to infinity.

    It’s amazing how much energy nature moves… how to tap into that is the trick.

  40. CD Marshall says:

    So whatever happened to Geran? Last I saw of him was the lunar orbit argument and then he was gone. Or was it being tidally locked or not spinning or something I forget but has been a while.

  41. CD Marshall says:

    Found this in a METEO:3 college course…https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/l2_p3.html

    Planck’s Law
    Planck’s Law can be generalized this way: Every object emits radiation at all times and at all wavelengths. Does that surprise you? We know that the sun emits visible light (below left), infrared waves, and ultraviolet waves (below right), but did you know that the sun also emits microwaves, radio waves, and X-rays? Of course, the sun is a big nuclear furnace, so it makes sense that it emits all sorts of electromagnetic radiation. However, Planck’s Law states that every object emits over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. That means that you emit radiation at all wavelengths, and so does everything around you!

    Now before you dismiss this statement out-of-hand, let me say that you are not emitting X-rays in any measurable amount. The mathematics behind Planck’s Law hinge on the fact that there is a wide distribution of vibration speeds for the molecules in a substance. This means that it is possible for matter to emit radiation at any wavelength, and in fact it does, but the amount X-rays you’re currently emitting, for example, is unimaginably small.

  42. CD Marshall says:

    I POSTED THIS A WHILE BACK DID’T LINK IT THOUGH. Still funny.

  43. CD Marshall says:

    boomie hilarious.

    The scope is to reset the population to 1.9 billion I believe it was? I’m guessing they did not plan for humans to be so resilient. Yet all this money could have been spent on solutions instead of this.

    This wasted E money could have been spent putting a base on the moon or even several, heck even a lunar city by now. The Space Station should be enormous, such a waste.

  44. CD Marshall says:

    The Left destroys everything it touches and never once takes responsibility for its crimes.

  45. boomie789 says:

    Most people go by what the Georgia guide stones say which is five hundred million. Then the Kalergi plan says they need to be a mixed race people with no real connection to their past. That way they have no pride and a Luke warm IQ. Also androgynous to weed out the masculine instincts and make them more passive and subordinate.

    That’s supposed to be the New World Order. The rulers of it will be their own race though and they will have a superior IQ and full of ego, pride and agency. Slaves and masters, prison planet and all that.

    They will probably fail but that’s the plan I think.

  46. CD Marshall says:

    If cloning is perfected, they can wipe us out by the millions and create a perfect drone race. What sick perverts lay awake dreaming of such crap? Mental rejects.

  47. Pingback: Controlling The Climate And Viruses – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

  48. Barry says:

    Went to Victoria yesterday I think we can win this thing. There were thousands and we only need hundreds. If this doesn’t work obviously we can get the boys together put on our boots and fix it.

  49. CD Marshall says:

  50. CD Marshall says:

  51. ashemann says:

    The Flu Trux Klan has arrived at squishy Justins for a cuppa, but he is hiding from ”a fringe crackpots” and their big boys toys.

    He is a spineless twat.

  52. CD Marshall says:

    Dear Joe of the Postmas,
    “Alex” is having a mental breakdown over you on my Twitter feed. At this point I think he may be unstable.

    Let’s see if I can capture the mood? Hopefully you can follow the thread from here?

  53. Joseph E Postma says:

    These people are literal canned-program NPC’s that have repeated the same nonsense for years.

    All of his concerns have been addressed multiple times.

    Heat is not the conserved quantity – heat isn’t even a quantity, it is an action. There is no conservation of action, but of quantity.

    The article you linked addresses his questions fully.

    Yes, higher Tc means less heat, that’s it. But the inside term of Th^4 is STILL THERE, DOING ALL OF THE EMITTING.

    These people are crazy. Just keep taunting him for being a coward for not having a live debate. When he reverts to “online discussion” demand, remind him that that has already been done, and since it has been done and he’s still not satisfied, then to come for live debate. Just focus on them being a coward…arguing science doesn’t matter to them.

  54. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Introducing that second plate causes an initial reduction in the heat transfer out of the first plate thus causing the first plate to INCREASE in temperature.”

    This is simply word game sophistry like Zeno’s paradox of motion. He can write that sentence, but it doesn’t actually mean anything, and it doesn’t follow the mathematics of thermodynamics which is what reality actually follows.

    The first plate emits energy to space. Not heat, but energy. Space doesn’t receive heat. The first plate simply emits at sT^4. When you bring in the second plate, the first plate STILL EMITS sT^4.

    Now, though, heat can exist, there can be an action of heat, and that is with the first plate’s energy warming the introduced second plate. The first plate heats the new second plate. The second plate is heated up to the temperature of the first plate, and now the second plate emits what the first plate was emitting to space. Energy conserved.

    Although you can write a word argument as he did above, at no point are there mathematics of thermodynamics where the introduction of the second plate should make the first plate become warmer. There is simply no math for that. In thermodynamics, to increase temperature, you need heat, and heat comes from the warmer body. The introduced second plate is colder than the first plate, and it is what is heated by the first plate, and the second plate cannot heat the first plate since it is colder, hence the first plate can’t increase in temperature from it. That’s the math.

    What this is is a demonstration of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, where with an axiomatic language such as English, one can create sentences which are syntactically readable, but semantically meaningless. Mathematics gets around that because math is not axiomatic, but is tautological, hence Gödelian incompleteness does not apply to ontological mathematics. The mathematics of thermodynamics is what says true things about reality; spoken language-based word games do not, and you have to be very careful using spoken language to ensure that it describes what the math actually needs you to.

  55. Joseph E Postma says:

    And as I said, we’ve been over this countless times online with him on various venues. This has been written out dozens and dozens of times.

    But use that, if you like, as I don’t have the liking to engage with him on Twitter right now. Use the above to your liking.

  56. boomie789 says:

    https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine

    “Chevron deference, or Chevron doctrine, is an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer. The principle derives its name from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[1]”

    This needs to be repealed really badly. A YouTube got arrested recently for some really Trump up out of line charges.

    My understanding is CRS Firearms just promoted Rare breed triggers, he was paid, and promoted a legal fund for them after the ATF declared their product was illegal.

    So the ATF sent USA marshalls to arrest him and bring him to Florida to answer for “Conspiracy” and other vague charges. He lives in Wisconsin.

    The ATF has something called “Chevron deference” that all Federal bureaucracies got from some court case back in the day. Practically it allows them to change laws by decree without congress or anything.

    So they use that to reinterpret the legal definition of a machine gun. They reinterpreted it to make this trigger illegal.

    Fully automatic weapons are obviously protected under the second amendment. The ban on them is blatantly unconstitutional in the first place.

    “The ATF’s objectives are clear:
    1. Make an example of Matt to intimate other gun owners and YouTube creators.
    2. Establish legal precedent as a means of prosecuting future legal cases against gun owners.
    3. Greatly broaden NFA restrictions to other firearms and their accessories without legislative approval.

    Matt’s case must go to trial. If he takes a plea deal, Matt could lose 1) his FFL and SOT licenses, 2) have his guns confiscated, 3) have his gun store business shut down, 4) be kicked off YouTube and other social media platforms, and 5) never be able to buy another firearm again.

    For the reasons stated above, it’s very important to donate to Matt’s gofundme account. He will need hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund his defense.”

    -Chess Lover

    https://gofund.me/264826f5

    This “Chevron Deference” I’m sure applies to the EPA and the like.

  57. CD Marshall says:

    Joe some guys want the links to the chats if you got them, but I know they shut down those chats too so not sure if you have any left?

  58. Joseph E Postma says:

    Well it was covered here somewhere in the comments a while ago extensively, it was also on reddit, and it is in the blog article you linked too. But no, I don’t have links to the chats.

    Just post what I wrote above, and that’s sufficient (just link this comment if necessary…too long for a single tweet):

    “Introducing that second plate causes an initial reduction in the heat transfer out of the first plate thus causing the first plate to INCREASE in temperature.”

    Heat is not the conserved quantity – heat isn’t even a quantity, it is an action. There is no conservation of action, but of quantity. There is no action of heat upon space, you can’t do work on space. To talk of heat to space is meaningless. More on meaningless language below.

    Yes, higher Tc means less heat, that’s it. This simply means that the cooler plate is coming to equilibrium with the hot plate, and that the cooler plate’s rise in temperature per unit time lessens. But the inside term of Th^4 is STILL THERE, DOING ALL OF THE EMITTING.

    This is simply word game sophistry like Zeno’s paradox of motion. He can write that sentence, but it doesn’t actually mean anything, and it doesn’t follow the mathematics of thermodynamics which is what reality actually follows.

    The first plate emits energy to space. Not heat, but energy. Space doesn’t receive heat, because you can’t do work on space. The first plate simply emits at sT^4. When you bring in the second plate, the first plate STILL EMITS sT^4.

    Now, though, heat can exist, there can be an action of heat, and that is with the first plate’s energy warming the introduced second plate. The first plate heats the new second plate. The second plate is heated up to the temperature of the first plate, and now the second plate emits what the first plate was emitting to space. Energy conserved.

    Although you can write a word argument as he did above, at no point are there mathematics of thermodynamics where the introduction of the second plate should make the first plate become warmer. There is simply no math for that. In thermodynamics, to increase temperature, you need heat, and heat comes from the warmer body. The introduced second plate is colder than the first plate, and it is what is heated by the first plate, and the second plate cannot heat the first plate since it is colder, hence the first plate can’t increase in temperature from it. That’s the math.

    What this is is a demonstration of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, where with an axiomatic language such as English, one can create sentences which are syntactically readable, but semantically meaningless. Mathematics gets around that because math is not axiomatic, but is tautological, hence Gödelian incompleteness does not apply to ontological mathematics. The mathematics of thermodynamics is what says true things about reality; spoken language-based word games do not, and you have to be very careful using spoken language to ensure that it describes what the math actually needs you to.

  59. CD Marshall says:

    SO is this the just of his argument? He’s repeating it again.
    1/2 One BB plate: source provides 100 W/m^2 to irradiated side. Plate must emit 50 W/m^2 from each side to satisfy first law. Plate emits s T1^4 per unit area from each side. T1 = 172K.
    2/2 Now make it 2 plates. Plate 1 receives 100 W/m^2. Emits s T1^4 from irradiated side and transfers s (T1^4 – T2^4) to plate 2. Plate 2 receives s (T1^4 – T2^4) from plate 1 and emits s T2^4 to space. Solve the 1st law for each plate -> T1=185K, T2=156K.

  60. CD Marshall says:

    I’m going to have to go back and read the GP post again for the fun of it.

  61. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yes that’s covered in the blog article. He’s just repeating things and gaming for the same setup, etc.

  62. CD Marshall says:

    Trudeau has Covid. Thought you should know if you don’t already…I’m not saying a word.

  63. Joseph E Postma says:

    This blog article:

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/05/19/green-plate-analyzed-and-demolished/

    It is clear that this fellow must be Rabbet…as obsessed as he is over this. Whatever who cares…they’re all programmed NPC’s.

  64. Joseph E Postma says:

    That solution he’s trying to set up is algebra…it is simply algebra. Yes, this is math. But it is not the ontological mathematics of thermodynamics. Note that he doesn’t actually utilize the First Law of Thermodynamics in its actual mathematical definition: dU = Q + W = m Cp dT.

    What he only tries to use instead is the concept of conservation of energy, which is indeed what the first law is, except he doesn’t use the math of the first law, and only uses an algebra instead.

    If we were to take his end state solution, T1=185K, T2=156K, then the heat flow to the second plate is Q = sigma * (185^4 – 156^4), which is greater than zero. That is, there is positive heat flow upon the second plate. Now because he only looks at the algebra, and not the mathematical definition of the first law, he thinks he can stop here. However, the First Law for the second plate under these conditions is dU = Q = m Cp dT, and since Q is greater than zero for the second plate, then dT is greater than zero for the second plate, and so the second plate must be rising in temperature, but his algebraic solution intended that this is steady state. Hence, there’s a paradox. The paradox is resolved by dispensing with the abstract algebra, and deferring instead to the ontological mathematics of the actual definition of the first law.

  65. ashemann says:

    So his back radiation gambit then.
    i see the back radiation gambit like this, bouncing a ball of a wall.

    The back radiated energy from the old plate is constant but meaningless.
    plate 1 the wall the ball is plate 2’s back welling energy .

    Its the same energy flux out of the cold plate as is instantly returned to the cold plate, so it isn’t losing any energy to the hot plate,

    Like the same ball out and back and back from the wall over and over. and over, the wall hasn’t gained any balls and i haven’t lost any.

    Am i right.

    I lasted about 24 hours on twitter.

  66. ashemann says:

    Joe i like that heat is an action, an instantaneous transient phenomenon
    So are they correct to say heat flows from one place to another or energy flows from one place to another, and if energy isn’t that energy only potential heat, our suns energy output is immense but how much is used as work, it all had the potential but only a tiny minute amount gets used as heat.

  67. CD Marshall says:

    Even in a steady state energy is being released as fast as it is coming in and the T is maintained not by Q but by W. The other physicist tried to pull that crap as well, claiming you don’t need heat for no “heat” is being created to maintain a T but heat was needed to establish that T and now work is maintaining that T which is still the LOT. They try and pull that to claim cold can heat hot and it’s just insane sauce.

  68. boomie789 says:

  69. CD Marshall says:

    Alex won’t debate you live because?
    1. He’s not human (bot).
    2. Does not speak English.
    3. Has a criminal record.
    4. Knows he’s full of “merde”.

  70. This lady gets it. Artificial trees now.

  71. We’re literally in a war for life on this planet.

  72. boomie789 says:

    “The new censorship scheme from YouTube, the latest move in the media giant’s War Against The People.”

  73. Fn parasite scum.

  74. CD Marshall says:

    “Bot” is the popular opinion on Twitter.

  75. CD Marshall says:

    Patch together some things you have read on blogs, in no particular order

    It is well known that all complex problems have simple, but wrong answers. Provide examples but explain in detail how YOUR wrong answers are right.

    Create an impression of original thought by impassioned scribbling (your answer may be ungrammatical. Extra points if the post is all CAPS).

    Does the answer to this question depend on your personal political or theological beliefs? Explain how this makes everyone else an atheist communist eco-Nazi.

    How much irrelevant scientific background can you give before addressing this question? Extra points for including references to papers that say exactly the opposite of what you claim

    Describe the consensus view of climate change and your personal view are simply two equal sides of the argument, then say what you personally feel. When it is pointed out that there is no reason to listen to you say that the atheist communists eco-Nazis hate freedom.

    Rise above the fumbling efforts of others and speculate freely on why climate is changing (it’s pirates!).

    Either (a) Answer this question by announcing that it really means something different (and much easier to answer, see question 1) or (b) Give the same answer you gave in your 50 previous comments in the same thread. This is very easy using copy and post.

    Protest your convictions in the teeth of obvious and overwhelming objections.

    Insult the blog owner and then whine that you got banned.

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-to-climate-troll-we-have-always.html

  76. CD Marshall says:

    So is the Holocene a fabrication? Are we still in the Pleistocene and they lied about that too to push global warming? They can’t say we are “out of an ice age’ when we still have ice on the planet. Antarctica has had ice for at least 2.7m years. They estimate even longer, up to 30m years which would span this ice age to that point. Some also think glaciation means ice age.

  77. Pablo says:

    “….ice sheets terminated every second or third obliquity cycle at times of high obliquity, similar to the original proposal by Milankovitch.”

    “But how does a forcing with a 40-kyr period pace the 100-kyr late- Pleistocene glacial variability? One suggestion is that the phase and amplitude modulations of obliquity cause the 100-kyr variability, but it is difficult to see the climatic significance of such modulations. Instead, we suggest that the climate state skips one or two obliquity beats before deglaciating, thus giving quantized glacial-cycle durations of either 80 or 120kyr. A speculative scenario is for increased obliquity to increase high-latitude insolation and cause heating of an ice sheet, eventually warming the ice–bedrock interface. When the ice sheet is thin, basal temperature and pressure are low, and the obliquity heating has little effect—a skipped beat. But when the ice sheet is thick, basal temperature and pressure are high,…..”

    https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3382978/Huybers_ObliquityPacingTerminations.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

  78. CD Marshall says:

    Yeah I think the cycles are closer to 120k years, 100k of glaciation, 20k interglacial but nothing is cookie cutter logic in climate, though.

  79. MP says:

    LIVE IN OTTAWA – CANADIAN TRUCKER FREEDOM CONVOY 2022 – DAY 4 – Part 2

    The world is watching, Carry on Brave Canadians. Expect same actions WW next weekend

  80. CD Marshall says:

    And Trudeau is hiding out claiming he has Covid while calling the protest “an act of terrorism” what a commie. I hope Rubber Ducky gets him.

  81. CD Marshall says:

    This is from Dr. Holmes, thoughts?
    “This formula collapses the ‘Greenhouse effect’ and proves it does not exist;
    Te = ∜0.523 x Tv
    The surface temperature on Earth is easily calculated – from Venus.
    The fourth-root of the TSI difference times the temperature in the Venus atmosphere at 1atm = Earth’s temperature!”

  82. boomie789 says:

    https://odysee.com/@Boomie:a/IMG_2721:c

    Alt
    [video src="https://files.catbox.moe/5opnoo.MP4" /]

  83. MP says:

    At – CD Marshall

    the square root relation to distance of the sun (tsi at the toa) is derived from the Stephen boltzman law

    Stephen boltzman law describes temperature math of a virtual black body in space

    Dr. Holmes pointed out that the square route relation is the same for 1 bar gas as a virtual blackbody in space

    Even albedo doesn’t matter

  84. CD Marshall says:

    Boomie that video on the The Milankovitch Cycles was pretty good. The axial tilt can change between 22.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees we are currently at 23.44 degrees, I feel precise measurements in this case are important.

  85. MP says:

    The Canadian Truckers CAN’T Be Stopped

  86. CD Marshall says:

    Thanks MP so in reverse Earth’s T should match Venus. Making the equation balance.

  87. MP says:

    @ CD Marshall

    Right.

    All planetary systems with at least 1 bar pressure have the same temperature relation, related to the TSI at the top of the atmosphere

    This completely destroys the radiation balance narrative.

    Whatever positive or negative feedbacks you throw at the 1 bar atmospheric system, it overall remains a steady state based on the sun input

    How that is possible opens up a can of new research/hypothesis worms

    Almost always chaotic systems get back to a less chaotic system over time tho

  88. CD Marshall says:

    I’m talking to a guy who thinks ocean acidification is a real thing and atmospheric CO2 is the cause. Normally I just explain it but I’m playing with him for fun. I gave him this equation but didn’t explain it. (Compliments of Pierre).

    So I wrote out the equation like this
    CaSiO3 + H2CO3 = CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2
    CaCO3 + H2CO3 = Ca(HCO3)2

  89. CD Marshall says:

    The full explanation:
    CO2 reacts with water (H2O) to form carbonic acid (H2CO3).

    Underwater volcanoes eject calcium silicate (CaSiO3) on the ocean floor and that is the buffer that controls the pH of the oceans. The ocean floor is littered with this product. Carbonic acid reacts with calcium silicate to give insoluble calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Carbonic acid then reacts with this calcium carbonate to give aqueous calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO3)2). Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2 but runs from 8.1-8.3, slightly alkaline. The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralize it.
    CaSiO3 + H2CO3 = CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2 (sand)
    CaCO3 + H2CO3 = Ca(HCO3)2

  90. MP says:

    @ CD

    For whatever alarmist scare point just show them a longer period sciencew graph

    The panic is created by starting at a low point of a sideways going zig zag movement

    Picture below is long term ph fluctuations from a coral proxy

  91. CD Marshall says:

    Wow that’s simplistic, where did oyu get that from? That’s gold. Well, obviously Wei et al, 2015

  92. MP says:

    Same with Arctic temperature

    The spikes in the graph are monthly fluctuations. The thick blue line going up and down sidewards is a moving average

    When the monthly spike is up many TV crews go the arctic saying it is proof of mug global warming

  93. CD Marshall says:

    It is very hard to find info of the Arctic before 1979. I thought NOAA had all of that destroyed or changed.

  94. CD Marshall says:

    Eureka I found “IT”.

  95. CD Marshall says:

    Delete that please here IT is Eli Rabbet itself

  96. CD Marshall says:

    You can delete them both after you get his link.

  97. CD Marshall says:

    I want to thank all of you guys for furthering my education, you are absolutely invaluable. I had a sophomore college level education fresh out of highs school but never pursued college, different world back then.

  98. Joseph E Postma says:

    I’m putting this parallel plate thing in my book, but feeling really bad about it because it’s lengthy technical discussion and a bit of math. On the other hand, I did that in my first book with the concentric shells, and that example was much more complex and mathematical. I’m just thinking of the mom’s at the park where my daughter plays that I’ve given copies of my book to…lol. My books really aren’t for women though. So what do you guys think? Full-on break down and analysis and solution like I did with the concentric shells in my first book?

  99. CD Marshall says:

    You need something in the book for all levels of education. “This is the way”. The tricky part is “how” to present the differences. Like I’ve seen so many books put the real technical stuff in the back for those who want it. However, that might lose the interest of the more educated reader…Then again, the technical part might lose the interest of the mid-level reader. Your engineer level reader will LOVE the technical stuff more. Your daughter might not…at least not yet. So, treat that side like you would a climate scientist.

  100. Zelator says:

    My thoughts is that I would go with making it “easier” to understand for the layman. Afterall we are not really trying to change the other side as they are stuck in their ways and determined to undermine anything we say.

    Unless of course you have proof to discredit and completely change the game. If so go for the kill.

    But mid level general public will appreciate an easier read. There is no point in preaching to the other side as they will always rebuke it anyway, such is their twisted way of seeing things and their obvious agenda.

    Obviously balance that with a adjunct note to the book to explain that position. The more detailed data etc can be provided in a conclusion section, and then a round up will be for those that dont know much science or real world exopolitics and want a summary to make them feel like they learned and got something from this book that educated them.

    Just my opinion.

  101. boomie789 says:

    Well you kind of covered both with your last two books so good question. idk.
    Think of the audience you really want to target. Write to them.

  102. CD Marshall says:

    This is a tweet from a sick and twisted person…
    “Earth will care for us IF it can carry us.
    It can’t.
    We weigh too much. We took too much.
    We overshot the limits.
    It can’t carry 8 billion. It won’t.
    It WILL reduce our numbers, even if we refuse.
    We can reduce our numbers voluntarily…or involuntarily.”

  103. boomie789 says:

    One of those people not even on Team Human.

  104. CD Marshall says:

    Cloud “forcing” doesn’t exist. So, what would you actually call it? Forcing indicates a T increase which it never does. Forcing the open atmospheric window closed to allow a slower cooling process is not the term, forcing.

  105. CD Marshall says:

    So this is from MIT (help us all)

    “Radiative forcing is what happens when the amount of energy that enters the Earth’s atmosphere is different from the amount of energy that leaves it. Energy travels in the form of radiation: solar radiation entering the atmosphere from the sun, and infrared radiation exiting as heat. If more radiation is entering Earth than leaving—as is happening today—then the atmosphere will warm up. This is called radiative forcing because the difference in energy can force changes in the Earth’s climate.”

  106. They just make up whatever they want.

    There’s been nothing worse for humanity and nothing better for the parasites than mass society from large populations.

  107. Because everyone becomes anonymous, inaccessible, and therefore unaccountable. The worst people can get away with the worst.

  108. Pablo says:

    “The absorbent action of carbon dioxide and the permanent gases is almost invariable; but the absorption bands of aqueous vapour are much stronger in the summer than in winter, and the selective scattering of short waves also increases in summer. One result of this variation is that the direct rays of the midday sun, received upon a a normal surface, are more powerful in winter than in summer, in spite of the greater distance traversed by the sunbeam through the air in winter.”

    “The direct effect of the sun’s rays upon a normal surface is less in the tropics than in temperate regions, and less at sea level than upon a mountain top, owing to the difference in the aqueous component of the air; and the ability of the solar radiation to maintain a high temperature in the torrid zone or at sea level is due to the accumulation of the thermal energy imparted to the Earth’s surface by reason of the retention of the escaping radiation from that surface by a moist and highly absorbent atmosphere rather than to the direct power of the sunbeam.”

    “As long as the mantle of water vapour remains unbroken, thermal fluctuations are kept within narrow limits. Storms may make inroads upon the continuity of this aqueous atmospheric envelope,
    but evaporation of moisture restores the rents.”

    “The gradual accumulation of moisture in higher and higher atmospheric layers during the summer, clothes the temperate regions with so deep a protective covering of moist air, that summer conditions are prolonged in the autumn to a time which is astronomically the correlative of late winter. The absence of this deep protective layer, whose formation can only be effected gradually, permits late frosts in spring, long after the sun has resumed his ascendency.”

    “…in addition to the large specific heat and mobility of water, conducing to the slowness of oceanic temperature changes; but more important as a retainer of oceanic heat is the extension of the
    great band (6,3 microns) to greater wave-lengths in the absorption of the layer of air nearly saturated with moisture, which always hangs over the water.”

    From “Atmospheric Radiation” by Frank W. Very 1900

  109. Pablo says:

    “It appears certain that on our Earth surface temperatures lower than -73ºC., or 200ºK. can not occur, possibly because of the almost total absorption
    by the atmosphere of all radiations beyond 13 microns.

    …the position of the normal maximum in the energy-curve for the lowest arctic temperature very nearly coincides with the great absorption band of carbon dioxide.”

    Ditto

  110. boomie789 says:

    https://odysee.com/@Boomie:a/video_2022-02-03_10-13-00:7

    Canadian government gets money for every Canadian they inject with the mystery juice.

  111. Joseph E Postma says:

    “the ability of the solar radiation to maintain a high temperature in the torrid zone or at sea level is due to the accumulation of the thermal energy imparted to the Earth’s surface by reason of the retention of the escaping radiation from that surface by a moist and highly absorbent atmosphere rather than to the direct power of the sunbeam”

    That a bit of an off statement…it of course requires the direct power of the sunbeam to be intense enough in the first place in order to generate the high temperature. In fact, even when the temperature is at maximum in the day, it is still a lower temperature than the forcing from sunlight. The surface never gets as hot as the sunbeam temperature, because it is always catching up due to thermal mass and also due to the cooling effect of convection occurring.

  112. Joseph E Postma says:

    We live in a world of maximum disgustingness…boomie…so gross. Trudeau also apparently ordered TEN-times the number of shots we would theoretically need. Clown world = maximum disgustingness.

  113. Joseph E Postma says:

    OK…I’ve nailed the parallel plate argument in the 3rd book, just as I did the concentric shells argument in the first book. Beautifully nailed it.

  114. Barry says:

    It’s quite funny how people can say that 8 billion is to many as apposed to what. It’s pretty much the same argument as cc, what if it gets2 degrees warmer who cares it would be a good thing crops would continue to outpace demand. On a flight from Edmonton to Yellowknife about ten years ago now I was astounded at the total lack of people. No hiways no roads no houses no sign of human beings for hundreds of miles in all directions. I agree our cities are unsustainable as we continue to infill rather than build whole new cities that could be properly built with infrastructure that could actually work and benifit man rather than trying to make transport fit our cities we could have our cities fit our transport systems. Service corridors so that we wouldn’t have to tear up streets for months to fix a water main leak. It would seem so easy today to build a properly laid out place for people to play and work instead of trying to fit them into existing structure.

  115. CD Marshall says:

    Insert inappropriate college humor here…
    “Beautifully nailed it.”
    …That’s what she said.

  116. CD Marshall says:

    Joe you should do a small post one day called, “The tale of Two Fluxes”.

  117. Well Barry, as boomie could tell you…the future we envisioned for our people was as you describe, but something else happened instead to destroy us.

  118. boomie789 says:

    Nobody really cares about over population it’s just a guilt trip. There seems to be only one demographic in decline, the ones most proselytized to about over population and climate change.

    It’s warfare. Insidious.

  119. CD Marshall says:

    The entire population of Earth could fit in Texas in one stinking festering super mega city. You could build underground worldwide and have not a single city on the surface. Population is a political narrative like everything else.

  120. But it’s not actually nice to live in such a large population. And we all degenerate living in a city.

    Population level and density of the Renaissance Era seems best for creating healthy minds and people.

  121. Barry says:

    Ya I think where we find ourselves now pretty much speaks volumes about most city dwellers. I’ve heard radio announcers in their forties tha just found out that dill pickles are actually cucumbers. This is the intelligence we are dealing with they think chicken is made in the back of the grocery store. Maybe we do need a bit of a test to see if we are worthy or not,certainly our prime minister would fail any iq test given to him. Off to Victoria again on Saturday for what good it does we may have to raise the bar a bit if they won’t give in on their own.

  122. CD Marshall says:

    Dense populations spread disease. Paris is famous for that history, aren’t they?

  123. CD Marshall says:

    Agreed. That’s why I said, “stinking festering” can you imagine the pollution, sewage and trash of that city? Cesspools and toxic sewage.

  124. CD Marshall says:

    I still remember the good ole days when children weren’t a reward for poverty (welfare benefits).

  125. CD Marshall says:

    The plate needs to be in it you should send a link to Rabett’s Twitter account with love. He says he’s a “chemical physicist” on there, by the way.

    @EthonRaptor

  126. MP says:

    Big party in Ottawa next weekend

    Expect many nations to follow

  127. MP says:

    For the Keks (lols)

  128. Barry says:

    Our prime minister at his finest please let me take him to the train.

  129. immortal600 says:

    Joe, you hit it square on the head when you said “Population level and density of the Renaissance Era seems best for creating healthy minds and people.” That is very, very true. Unfortunately the marxists see that as a goal to be attained by culling a large portion of the population with their deadly vaccines. We are watching death rates go unnaturally higher in vaccinated populations across western societies. When will this madness end?

  130. CD Marshall says:

    Yes the same Marxists who can’t “see” beyond our planet. Space exploration has always been the answer to population and well the common sense of everyone to have planned childbirths and be able to financially support your kids (as a standard guideline). The 80s and early 90s were a good population, in the 80s people were starting to get along again in the US then the Left reignited race and entitlements. They couldn’t afford for the United States to be united as one nation with no race, just Americans.

    The Left were the racists, they were the KKK and they were the ones who disproved of women voting, sadly the “Right” were in part not really objecting that much. The Left loves segregation, just look at the vax passports.

    The North was very wealthy at that time, and the South lacked a work force. Neither wanted to work things out. Slavery was never the answer, and neither was greed. The civil war never needed to happen.

  131. CD Marshall says:

    What is the science to crush the CO2 amplifies WV claims? One of those things I haven’t delved into. Where are they even getting those claims from?

  132. ashemann says:

    CD Marshall says:
    2022/02/04 at 1:07 PM
    What is the science to crush the CO2 amplifies WV claims? One of those things I haven’t delved into. Where are they even getting those claims from?

    The back welling LW can only penetrate waters top few surface molecules, only penetrates microns.
    Even so it aids in evaporation, to claim that is a warming or forcing is a nonsense, as evaporation is a cooling process for about 72/73% of the global surface.

  133. boomie789 says:


    I don’t think there is a multi-verse.

  134. CD Marshall says:

    I still think dark matter is black hole poop. So, what do I know?

  135. CD Marshall says:

    @ashemann
    Ah they are claiming that is creating warming. Even showed me a paper on it.

  136. CD Marshall says:

    Can BBC get any lower?
    “Climate change: Satellites map huge methane plumes from oil and gas”

  137. This discussion is lit!

  138. CD Marshall says:

    Read this part through didn’t see anything glaringly wrong with it on a once over but I have a headache. Just the part 8 mind you not the whole thing. I noticed they skipped the t-v/v-t collisional transfer of E with homonuclear molecules.

    https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2020/08/recent-advances-in-climate-change-research-part-viii-how-carbon-dioxide-absorbs-earth-s-ir-radiation

  139. boomie789 says:

    (https://files.catbox.moe/y5srup.MP4)
    URGENT WARNING – MASS ARRESTS IMMINENT

    Please share

    From sources inside Police services – Feds are sending hundreds of riot cops to coordinate with OPS and all other LE to go block by block, piece at a time to break up this demonstration no later than Friday.

    Will likely happen late at night, I would guess Tuesday or Wednesday

    Prisoners will be bussed to Lansdowne area for processing.

    Orders coming from top of Government.

    Is this your legacy, RCMP?

    No one will forgive you.

    @RagingDissident

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s