I have been part of a long-ongoing email thread with the CLINTEL group and consulting scientists for the past many years. The thread hasn’t been active since CLINTEL released their statement last year, but, it recently had an addition by one of the members. One of the other contributors is Will Happer, who is a semi-well known “skeptic” of anthropogenic climate change.
Well, one of the members brought up the point that the only thing CLINTEL and other members of the thread should be bothering to do anymore is simply debunk the basis of AGW, which is its idea of a greenhouse effect. Nikolov and Zeller were referenced as source material for this, as well as my own books and work.
Well, Will Happer didn’t want to be part of that discussion, and asked to be removed from the thread. Curious about this, I asked Will Happer, quoting:
Actually, Will, I would like to ask you what your position is on the greenhouse effect?
Further, what is your understanding of how it is supposed to work? And what is its origin in theory, etc.?
Really would appreciate your comments here.
Will Happer responded with this:
Attached is a little essay for technically literate readers that William van Wijngaarden and I wrote a year ago. We have have not gotten around to publishing it. It summarizes our understanding of the greenhouse effect.
So, I told Will that I would read his paper, and would add sticky notes with my comments on it. The PDF with the sticky notes still in it is uploaded to my WordPress now, and can be found here if you would like to see Will’s paper, but, I will write out my sticky note comments following and so you can just read along here.
WH: “How greenhouse gases affect Earth’s climate is a complicated issue, where atmospheric thermodynamics and convection are intimately involved. We will simplify the discussion as much
as possible, but we will also try to adhere to Einstein’s admonition: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”.”
JP: “This principle of Einstein’s is actually violated, though. And not in a trivial way, but in a real, significant, impactful, and meaningful way.”
WH: “Launching into our maximally simplified discussion of the greenhouse effect, we consider a hypothetical Earth with a transparent atmosphere that is 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen,
and with the same mass as today’s atmosphere. But we assume no greenhouse gases at all, no CO2, no H2O and no clouds. To be consistent with no clouds, this hypothetical Earth must have no oceans, from which water vapor could evaporate. Oxygen, O2, actually does absorb a small amount of sunlight and also thermal radiation, but we will ignore that absorption and assume the atmosphere is completely transparent. To further simplify the problem, we assume that the Sun shines steadily with equal intensity on every part of Earth’s surface, from the tropics to the poles.”
JP: “Up to here the simplifications were hypothetically rational, hypothetically possible. That makes these simplifications ontologically possible things to explore in physics.
However, when the simplification here extends to “the Sun shining steadily with equal intensity on every part of Earth’s surface”, we have now reached a degree of simplification which divorces from reality; this is a simplification which is not ontologically possible. It is not possible for reality to express this simplification, hence, it is not possible for physics to express this simplification, hence, it is not possible that there is any physics to be used for this simplification – physics as we know it cannot apply to it.
A possible fiction is created with the previous simplifications. But a true fiction, an impossible fiction, is created with the latter.
See the next note for explanation.”
In the paper, Will goes on to demonstrate how to calculate the average output flux of the Earth, which he then equates to be the same thing as the solar input flux. Thus, my comment:
JP: “This number, 340 W/m^2, is what makes this simplification irrational, i.e. non-ontological. Earlier you listed the solar flux as 1360 W/m^2. So, which is it? Is the solar flux 1360 W/m^2, or, is it 340 W/m^2?
There is a paradox here. This isn’t a matter of a trivial approximation or averaging, but represents a change in the underlying nature of the physics, because flux relates to temperature, and temperature relates to what physics can manifest. Again, this is a fictional average which does not empirically exist, and cannot ontologically exist; it has went beyond the possibility of reality, as Einstein warned about.
That is: 340 W/m^2 cannot perform the same physics that 1360 W/m^2 can perform. 340 W/m^2 is 5 Celsius, whereas 1360 W/m^2 is +121 Celsius. One of these values cannot create the climate as we know it, whereas the other one certainly can, in the context of forcing of heat upon matter and the response that matter then has to that.
We’re supposed to be making a model for the climate, and atmosphere, correct? In that case, we must use the forcing values which actually create the climate: 1360 W/m^2 is what actually exists, and, it does create the climate; 340 W/m^2 is not what exists, and, it would not create the climate even if it did. This is important!”
Will then makes a few comments about heat flow, to which I commented:
JP: “It is very important to keep to strict definitions, although the usage of the language has become quite muddled over the 100 years since thermodynamics was developed.
The first law of thermodynamics is dU = Q + W = m Cp dT, which says, that to increase a body’s temperature, one must have heat (W), and/or work (W). This means that heat is the same thing as work: work is macroscopic, heat is microscopic – that’s the only difference. Heat is therefore an action, and it is not a conserved quantity, like energy is. Heat is an action energy may perform.
When may energy perform the action of heat, i.e. of heating? For that you need the heat equation, and of course, heat only acts from a warm body upon a cooler one…and this is true for all modes of heat: conductive, diffusive, convective, and of course, radiative. They all follow the rule of heat, only acting from hot to cool.
With that, right there, the idea that the atmosphere can heat the surface or increase the surface temperature is rendered defunct…not possible.
But here is where it comes together: the idea that radiation from the atmosphere is required to increase the surface temperature comes in the first place from using 340 W/m^2 as the solar input, which makes it seem like the Sun is too feeble to heat the surface to the temperatures we experience. But, the Sun does actually have such power, because it is actually 1360 W/m^2, not 340 W/m^2!
More comments below re: adiabatic atmosphere.”
Finally, Will referenced the adiabatic lapse rate, but without deriving it, and so I commented:
JP: “Let’s demonstrate the derivation of the lapse rate in the first place. For a gas in a gravitational field, and using local thermodynamic equilibrium, then the total energy of a gas parcel is
U = mgh + mCpT
Because this is local thermodynamic equilibrium, then the differential is:
dU = mg*dh + mCp*dT
Local thermodynamic equilibrium implies constant energy, so dU = 0, and therefore:
dT/dh = g/ Cp
This gives the -10K/km for dry air, and if you factor in the average absolute concentration of water vapor and its rate of condensation and release of latent heat as it cools in the air column, you will derive the environmental rate of -6.5K/km.
So, we know that the atmosphere must have a gradient in temperature. The question is: where is the zero-point? We have a gradient – where is the anchor?
But here’s the really important part: if we know that the gradient must exist, then we also know that, mathematically, the average of the values making up the gradient cannot be found at an extremity of the gradient, but must, by definition of an average, be found around the middle. So, what do we expect to be the average? Do we expect it to be the effective temperature, of -18C, where the solar energy has been factored for albedo, etc.? If we do expect the average to be -18C, then, it is impossible that this average should occur at the bottom-slice of the atmosphere. The bottom-slice of the atmosphere has to be warmer than the average, and it must be the warmest part of the gradient, and the average must be found around the middle of the troposphere. In fact, -18C is found at altitude in the troposphere, and if you use that temperature as the anchor point, then lo and behold, you will calculate +15C as the near-surface air temperature!
In other words, we model the atmosphere with no reference to a greenhouse effect. With or without so-called “greenhouse gases”, the expected average of -18C effective temperature cannot be found at the bottom-slice of atmosphere.
Do so-called “greenhouse gases” change the altitude of the anchor point, and thus change the temperature at the bottom-slice of atmosphere? We know that so-called greenhouse gases do not change the gradient, since the derivation of the gradient only required Cp, and hence does not depend on the radiative properties of the gas. This is what Lindzen looked for, in the “tropospheric hotspot”, and did not find it. Greenhouse gases were not rising the altitude of the anchor point.
If you change the altitude of the anchor point, then you in fact change the average temperature of the entire structure. But the Stefan-Boltzmann Law requires that higher temperature emits more energy, but ultimately, there is only one energy source, and it is constant – so emit more than the constant would result in cooling, not warming.”
Here is where the comedy starts. I send the PDF of his paper with the above sticky notes back to him, with this email:
OK, I took a few minutes to read it over, and I added sticky-note comments where appropriate.
I am also attaching two papers I wrote, which I hope you will take a look at to help flesh out the meaning and explanation of what I put in the sticky notes. I read your paper, and so I hope that you will read mine. They’re technical papers similar to yours, although focusing on more simple and direct fundamentals.
One problem in this discussion is that people always talk past each other with regards to the definition of “greenhouse effect” which they are working with, and these can be drastically different. The definition I use is the one which is pedagogical, which is found in instructory physics classrooms and textbooks.
I appreciate this correspondence.
And this was his reply (my emphasis):
You asked for my views on the greenhouse effect. The paper I sent is an accurate summary of my views.
I don’t understand many of your comments in the sticky notes, but so be it.
No offense meant, but I don’t have time for further correspondence of this issue.
So, you see how the Zeta parasites operate? They just gaslight, lie, miss the point, pretend nothing was said, and pretend that they can’t understand something which they can clearly understand given their own scientific writing.
You see…as I said in my Planet Wars book: this is impossible. Given that these people have degrees in physics, given their ability to write technical papers with math and physics, given their own demonstrated interest in the subject, it is impossible for them to not understand what I write to them, and it is impossible for them to not be interested in contributions which are similar to their own.
These people are just pretending…they’re pretending to be skeptics, but what they’re really doing, what they really are, are just Zeta-infested parasitical nodes to maintain the pretense that there’s nothing to question or comment on with regards to cold vs. hot sunshine, flat-plane illumination vs. hemispheric illumination, etc.
At all costs, to all ends, they refuse to engage on the question of the greenhouse effect. I mean, we’ve been through this, you read my Planet Wars book and saw the peer-review people say that there is nothing wrong with flat Earth theory, and that it makes no difference. It’s just gaslighting. Note also how Will uses yet another personal quirky definition of the greenhouse effect and talks about “his understanding” of it…but then refuses to address or acknowledge my actual references to the actual definition of it, as if these don’t exist or aren’t relevant.
BTW, here are the two papers I sent along to Will. They’re both excellent reads, and have each appeared in my books – the first book, and the third book – but these should really be put out there and shared on their own, as they’re so excellent:
Anyway – these people are comedians. I simply wrote back to Will and said:
That’s very funny Will. Thank you.
We are dealing with an alien noetic parasitical life form which at all costs cannot acknowledge any form of truth at any time. It feeds off of the energy leakage caused by cognitive dissonance. It can only lie, gaslight, and misdirect, at all times. Whenever you find this behaviour in another person, realize that you are dealing merely with a “flesh suit” which has behind its appearance a disgusting nasty parasite that wants to torture you to death as it consumes all of your energy. And yes, they do want to, and enjoy, torturing you to death:
Predators leave a herd alone most of the time; they don’t care to spend time with the herd. Individual members of a herd can easily spend their entire life never encountering a predator, and, most who do are near death anyway given that predators take the weak, old and sickly, and are in fact given a quick humane death by the predator. The herd as a whole can easily spend days, weeks, even most of the year never encountering a predator.
Parasites on the other hand never leave you alone. And they, literally, torture you to death, over weeks, months, and years, slowly wearing you down and making your life hell with no recourse and no relief. They torture you to death and they love doing it because that’s precisely how they eat from you…and they’ll sure as heck spread to other members of the herd and do the same to them, and they’ll do nothing but live with the herd full-time and torture to death as many members of the herd as they can.
Big difference between predator and parasite: Parasites slowly torture you to death with constant bullshit and make existence a living hell. Predators take you out quickly and efficiently when it’s your time anyway, and the rest of the time you live free and on your own.
A predator respects its prey and competes with it, and when it catches it, gives it a humane and quick death. Herd members have a chance with predators.
Parasites are just awful, all the time, and never leave you alone.
Like I said in my book: between predator and prey there is a certain truth which can be shared, a truth which the predator can share with the prey…and that truth is that the predator maintains the fitness, hence the Becoming, of the herd.
But with a parasite, there is no truth which can be shared between parasite and host. The parasite does nothing for the host…nothing whatsoever. This is why the noetic parasite cannot even recognize truth, why it cannot ever acknowledge any truth of any kind whatsoever, at all, why it is a constant and perfect sophist:
Otto Weininger: “A creature that cannot grasp the mutual exclusiveness of A and not A has no difficulty in lying; more than that, such a creature has not even any consciousness of lying, being without a standard of truth. Such a creature if endowed with speech will lie without knowing it, without the possibility of knowing it.”
That’s what we’re facing when we deal with these climate greenhouse effect jokers, especially the fake “skeptic” ones, who are simply parasites who have situated themselves at a position where cognitive dissonance can be defended and reinforced, which they then feed off of. Remember, these are mental, i.e. noetic, of the mind, parasites. They feed off of mental energy leakage, which is generated through cognitive dissonance.
Well, now you know their nature. They’re called “Zetas”.
You just have to face the facts. You just have to accept it.
When faced with an impossibility, then you are in fact facing a purpose. It’s impossible for these people, and the peer-review journals as I showed in Planet Wars, to respond the way that they did. It is impossible. Therefore it is purposeful. What is the purpose? You look at the end result of their policies of CO2 vilification: the end of all life on Earth. Then you ask: who would do this, and why, and what do you get out of it?
Well, throw in some occult knowledge and abilities, and you quickly find the answer.
You just have to accept that what we’ve been doing in the climate debate all of this time isn’t real. It’s not real. It’s not what you think it is – a scientific debate. That’s only the appearance, the pretense. What’s actually going on is something else entirely.
And now you know.
Read Planet Wars, if you haven’t yet.