TLDR: Fourier was right – the atmosphere would have to behave like solid barriers, which it does not and cannot.
There have been some recent results with multi-pane enclosures showing higher-than-SB-equivalent-input results being obtained, which makes it look like there is a radiative greenhouse effect and that cold can send heat to hot. So let’s just confirm, don’t you worry, I am aware of these results and I even collaborated with the people who did it and instructed on how to do it. The results are very scientifically interesting but I am still not worried about having to throw out my position that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. Here’s why.
The first thing to consider is the proviso that poor experimental conditions produce positive results. This means that experiments with insufficient control of known and unknown quantities tend to lead to results which confirm the hypothesis, in a form of false-positive conclusions. I just mention this because the first thing to consider is the emissivity of the panes, which when stacked together will add up together such as to make the lowest pane the most difficult at emission, which then produces higher temperature, which is of course not the radiative greenhouse effect. This is a possibility of concern, but it is not my main concern nor main analysis.
Let’s have a little bit of framing before we continue, as well. Remember, the claim of the radiative greenhouse effect is that -18°C can be amplified to +15°C with its own -18°C spectral energy. And where does this claim originate? It originates in the idea that the Sun cannot heat anything to above -18°C on Earth, which is a result of flat-Earth averaging of the solar flux over the surface area of the entire globe. I’ll just use a bunch of memes to make the point, but suffice it to say, that even if there were a radiative greenhouse effect (there’s not), it still would be wrong to say that the Sun cannot heat anything above -18°C and that the Sun isn’t responsible for creating the climate, as pedagogical climate science claims.
The point is that the extrapolations of flat Earth pedagogy modelling of the Earth which states impossible and untruthful things about the ontological nature of the Sun and the Earth…by definition cannot be true. The effect must be equal to the cause, and the effect is the greenhouse effect as postulated for how the climate works, and the cause is a flat Earth with cold Sunshine which cannot create the climate: The latter is certainly not true, not ontologically valid or meaningful, hence, the former cannot be true.
And so the first statement of truth to consider is, with regard to the de Saussure enclosures: are they how the atmosphere behaves; do they represent a function of the atmosphere; do they model the properties and behaviours of the atmosphere? The answer to that is just as Fourier point out: the atmosphere would have to be able to form solid barriers with the density and thermal conductivity properties of glass, in order for the atmosphere to demonstrate the effect of those devices.
If the atmosphere cannot create the physical conditions necessary for the effect, then it cannot manifest the effect. But here’s what’s so important about this, because one might be tempted to claim that the only conditions necessary are those of the production of backradiation, not solid barriers. However, the latter is indeed the case: solid barriers with a significant thermal conductivity effect are indeed the active factor.
Also think of what is being deposited into the bottom panes in the first place: it is solar-spectrum radiation. It is not actually -18°C spectrum being put in there, but 5778K spectrum. Do the thought experiment: if actual ice at -18°C were being faced into the de Saussure device, could the -18°C spectrum radiation amplify itself? In this case it is absolutely clear and certain. No! You’re definitely up against the thermodynamic laws then. It is totally clear that the basic mechanism or postulate of the radiative greenhouse effect is flawed as a general phenomenon given that scenario.
These are the mistakes I myself have myself been overlooking, as it makes all the difference that there is 5778K spectrum input, not -18°C spectrum input, and there are solid barriers which require physical diffusion heat transfer, not near-instantaneous radiative transfer. Now, while both the atmosphere and the de Saussure boxes share the same input spectrum, they do not share the same requirement of physical diffusion heat transfer through solid matter, which is extremely slow as compared to radiation, i.e., the speed of light.
The physical panes of the de Saussure boxes require many minutes of time for the heat to transfer through. This therefore means that the high-frequency incoming solar spectrum can keep acting upon the bottom panes without those panes being able to spontaneously emit the incoming energy given their own thermal emission. When unobstructed, the bottom pane will spontaneously emit what comes in, and this is where you get, like the surface of the Earth which has very little obstruction to emission, the usual input=output equality at equilibrium and the resultant temperature given the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
However, if you obstruct the bottom pane from being able to freely emit, this is essentially an imposition of reduced emissivity: it is not that the backradiation from the higher pane causes temperature increase – that definitely cannot happen, due to the usual and known Laws of Thermodynamics – it is that the incoming much higher-frequency solar spectrum of 5778K radiation has more time to act on the bottom pane bumping up frequencies in the molecules to higher states (and thus higher collective temperature) before the energy of those higher frequencies can be discarded (i.e., emitted), as they normally would be.
It is not backradiation which causes the temperature increase inside the de Saussure box, rather, it is the incoming solar spectrum high-frequency radiation which has more time to act on the molecules bumping them up to higher frequency states of vibration before those states can spontaneously shed that higher frequency vibratory energy, and this opportunity only manifests because the solid & IR-opaque barriers require a significant time for physical diffusion energy transfer.
It takes, say, a few or dozens of minutes for energy to transfer through a pane of the de Saussure box. That gives the incoming solar spectrum lot of extra time for heating given their much higher frequencies corresponding to a temperature of 5778K. However, for the open atmosphere, if we are needlessly generous and say that the atmosphere is 100km thick for radiation to transfer through, which is so generous it gives ample room for a few mean-free-path bounces of IR photon delay, then the time to traverse that is only 100km/300,000km/s = 0.0003s. If you then just use that as a factor over 1s to increase the time that the incoming energy gets to act, then the average of 240 W/m² gets bumped up by 0.08W/m²; if you use 1000 W/m² as zenith input then you get 0.3W/m². Or, let’s just call it 0.03 percent, in general. It’s negligible, in any case.
So, there is still no backradiation greenhouse effect, and the effect that might occur is not proportional to the amount of backradiation because if the transfer was instantaneous through a negligible layer which nevertheless emits of full component of “backradiation”, the effect would not manifest at all, because what you require is significant time delay.
And then to go back to the info graphics above, we still have the fact of the lapse rate requiring that the bottom of the atmosphere being its warmest part, which means that the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average of the atmosphere and hence of the expected average. And of course that the Sun can indeed create the climate.
And here’s the final word on this. What I’ve been telling you, for example in the previous post, is still entirely the situation we seem to be in. Remember that video (reviewed in the video of previous post) where the “crazed scientists” want to create a reversible solar shield? What does reversible even mean, in terms of a shield? And remember how they said that it would move between the L1 and L2 (Lagrange points) positions? Why would it need to move to L2? Do you see what’s happening there? They’re “baking something in“, so to speak. L1 is between Earth and Sun. L2 is behind the Earth from the Sun. Why there?
“To fight climate change and cool the planet we need a solar shield at L1.”
-Okay, that sounds great! Save the planet!
“Yes. Right. Ugh, for added bonus to stop climate change it can also be reversible and move to L2, and we need lots of money to test this innovative solution to solve climate change.”
-Wonderful, here’s your money! Save our planet!
What just got baked in, that didn’t need to be, if the point is to cool the planet? What got baked in is that the reversal of a shield is a magnifier, and, a magnifier could only work if it was at the L2 position! And they want to make it millions of square meters or even kilometers in size.
That is an Earth-destroying weapon. Firstly, it would so radically cool the planet at the size that they show in the video as to freeze out the atmosphere when at L1. Then, they would move it to L2, and blast the surface with an atomizing-matter-evaporating magnifier. The result after a few cycles would be like I said was their goal in my Planet Wars book: to leave the surface of the Earth as barren and desolate as the moon. That’s what this device would do.
And why would they do that? Because of Three Body Problem solution to Fermi’s Paradox: preemptive self-protection. And how would they do that? Through infiltration and subversion of our noosphere. And how would an enemy get us to agree to do this to ourselves? By being as close to the truth as possible, but inverting and perverting the truth in some subtle and final way incredibly difficult to detect.
Climate of Sophistry 
Finished 3 of your books (Planet Wars, Illuminism, and Simultaneity Paradox) and have a stack of paper for notes, 5/5 for all 3. this post reminded me of your “A Note on Fourier and the Greenhouse Effect” in 2015, these papers have really assisted in how one could practically apply ontological mathematics and, like Hockneys books, jumpstarted a passion in a subject I was being taught very little about. Are there any future projects you can share other than raising funds? any word from you is welcome but I understand the silence.
Also, are you aware of the recent revival of the PI with the Kobo books Ontics, Illumination Project, and Quantum Illuminati? There’s also 4 patreons of the authors. You made slight reference in your “Morgue and Starks Weird Frequencies” and the end of Illuminism that you have a distrust that it may have been hijacked. Just wondering if you are aware of that, they appear to rail against the Woke and stay true. I know you said you aren’t a “social media person”, we all have lives, but would this convince you to maybe be more active or try reaching out to them? I feel like soon there may be a genuine movement but as you said in that same video, illuminists don’t like mentioning you. Obviously choosing to stay with a small, dedicated group is understandable.
Good post as always, have a good week, Joe 👍
Yes those are the best 3 for sure. Glad you liked them.
Well look…I’m public, anyone can come talk to me, like you just did and many people have…I’m obviously ready, willing and capable to fight anyone publicly, but I’m also easy to talk to, my book reviews are quite high and anyone who isn’t just a troll or dickhead can understand how I’ve applied and deployed Ontological Mathematics to the real world, etc. There are any number of reasons for the true anonymous good-guy authors to stay away from me, 50/50 good nice reasons to nasty awful reasons.
My thesis now stands. If someone has a better explanation, then they should explain it. In fact, why aren’t the authors destroying me, like they to do any other who has come and gone with whacky ideas? Isn’t that telling? It gives me all the sanction in the world…it’s a silent message of approval which is in fact the highest God-damned compliment that ANYONE, ever, has received from them, and in fact it bolsters me to no end, because anyone else who’s ever been even slightly off-mark gets fucking wrekt by them.
The books haven’t been really new since the end of Hockney proper. Well, a few authors were actually really great, like Dixon, but it’s been just a lot of rehashing. My books and videos have actually produced something new.
If my thesis is correct, and it is, then there is so much intrigue and shenanigans going on that any of us can only trust ourselves. Secret organizations are going to be the most dangerous and sensitive places to be around. You can trust me, too…if it isn’t clear from my quite open writing that I’m relatively trustworthy.
Yes I have an experiment to do, with the funding. Although at this point, the experiment is for us…we’re not going to change the drones because they’re not changeable…they’re programmed for retardation and destructions. They’re simulants. The experiment is for us, to do real science, to do real natural philosophy and ontological mathematics with. I don’t care about presenting it “to the world”. I care about giving it to us, and the remnant of real souls who exist here with real actual minds. We basically need to do our own thing and have an institute/organization for ourselves, to think and act like civilized souls away from the drones and retards. We need to develop the religion of Illuminism publicly…I mean, for us publicly…as I started in that book.
One of the best ways to attract parasites is a honey trap, and nothing attracts a parasite like a place to hide. That explains a lot of things. That doesn’t mean that a hidden place is parasitical by definition, as secret places are necessary in a world full of predatory parasites, but secret places are what parasites love the most. That’s why they hide inside your body, for example, etc.
great to see you posting on the GHE once again. I’m currently immersed in mass immigration destruction of white people, which I find more urgent to address, though the GHE policies are cumulative in their destruction and just as important to defeat.
nice to see you posting on the GHE again
It’s all related. The enemy wishes to kill off White people as we’re the only capable defenders of the planet and of freedom and free thinking principles. Once we’re gone, the planet will be destroyed, everyone else will be Idiocracy slaves in the meantime.
So much truth in one place, thanks Joseph. (they should have asked the US candidates about this at the debate tonight…)Stan FossPocono Mountains, PA
Joe,
I have studied mechanical engineering and designed and built specialized machines during the length of my working career. Everything had to be logical, tested and had to work in this physical world. Why those publications do not see the logic in your analysis is beyond my comprehension. They must be living in a fantasy world.
Alex
When I read those infomemes, I’m bewildered that academia can’t discuss it, that they fire me and don’t let me with them over it, that they get mad about it.
So, the term, “becoming more acidic” was pushed in 2003 to replace the accurate definition of nearing basic or neutral.
Flux in at the TOA should always be higher than flux out. It should be thermodynamically impossible for it to be reversed. Unless the planet itself is emitting more energy than it receives.
Pingback: 536 AD: How Did Humanity Survive The Worst Year In History? – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
Geostorm
Gerard Butler playing a stubborn but charming satellite designer who, when the world’s climate-controlling satellites malfunction, has to work together with his estranged brother to save the world from a man-made storm of epic proportions. A trip into space follows, while on Earth a plot to assassinate the president begins to unfold.
-see how shit is getting baked-in?
I like the title!
Hi Guys. Well thanks to the post earlier I found it interesting . Also inspiring to take on someone regarding the amazing powers of CO2. it was based on the surface radiation. Please if you have the time to read this comment as I do wish to get this right. I know that everyone has a different view on how CO2 operates. My view is that it is simply magnificent at keeping our planet cool. On a seperate note H2O is fantastic on playing the dual role of cooling us during the day with evaporation and keeping us warm at night via latent heat. Again please comment to educate me.
Well simply I disagree.
Yes photons travel at C. So what. All photons do. Yes CO2 will do an amazing job of absorbing energy near the top of the troposphere when the collisional process is far far less than the surface. Yes it fantastic at shunting energy away from the surface. But you already know that.
Your rant about wind is a obfuscation on molecular motion being at 10Klm per hour. This is stupid.
Our discussion is on the surface and the ability of CO2 to back radiate at the surface. Not the ABILITY TO HEAT up other molecules. THAT IS NOT BACK RADIATION. That is conduction. Are you moving the goal post now on the meaning of back radiation.
So some revision for you again regarding thermal radiation at the surface and your greenhouse effect..
ABSTRACT
CO2 is not emitting photons at the SURFACE. It is colliding with other molecules transferring all the vibrational energy it acquired to them and also recieving that energy from the following collisions. What minimal amount it did absorb from thermal radiation is being passed over to other molecules via collision. THAT IS NOT BACK RADIATION. it is thermalization
Lets continue
At the surface on Earth majority of the emissions are at a wavelength that Co2 just cannot absorb. There is indeed a small portion of the most efficient absorption band of CO2 at 15um wavelengths that is emitted that can be absorbed. But at the SURFACE it rarely gets time to do that due to the CONTINUOUS collisional process. The vibrational mode of CO2 is already excited from the collisions. It is saturated in excitement. It could take on more possibly but the shear volume of energy thermalized from these collisions swamps what little energy it can absorb from IR.
As what I said in 2 paragraph’s above. CO2 is not emitting photons at the SURFACE. It is colliding with other molecules transferring all the vibrational energy it acquired from these collisions. What minimal amount it did absorb from thermal radiation when a photon seized the opportunity when the CO2 molecule was in a lower energy state is being passed on to other molecules via collision immediately after. THAT IS NOT BACK RADIATION. it is thermalization
At the surface of Earth for the bending mode it is a very minute amount of the 15um it can absorb. It really struggles to emit it due to constant collisions that absorb that vibrational energy (that is not back radiation). The CO2 molecule does not mystically enter into a 3 mode of vibration that alarmist are led to believe. It is a minute portion of 1 mode The 15um band. The other modes at the surface the minutia is even less. CO2 emissions at the surface are miniscule it really is not worth considering.
Joseph. Try to have your article published in the journal Science of Climate Change where the editor, prof. Herman Harde, is a climate realist. The journal even admit papers by climate alarmists. See Science of climate change
When I first approved your comment, there was a link to the journal. Now a few minutes later the link is gone? Did you edit it out? Or is this an example of real-time AI censoring the internet? OMG!?
I just put the link back in…let’s see if it gets removed again.
Joseph. I didn’t remove the link. I have no reason for that, on the contrary.
That’s insane. This is our world now. Holy f.
DO you guys think Gates is a Satanist like most of Hollyweird? If so he believes in the bible and in the bible, it states the Sun will scorch men’s flesh in the future and they so happen to be making something to “blot out the Sun”. Just a thought. Like that would stop a prophecy seen in the future “if” it were so.
They are absolute psychos.
Now on to a less metaphysical discussion. If Earth were for whatever reason not a conduction/convection planet and radiative equilibrium were the only process of energy exchange wouldn’t the effective temperature still be absolutely the same?
The ∇T (T1-T2) would be greatly altered, the adiabatic lapse rate would be the exact same and the effective temperature would be the exact same, no?
Specifically, the “dry ALR” would be exactly the same.
I guess. At this point, for me, I’ve concluded what you know I have, and although our world is full of irrationality, one must consider just how insane my memes are, that they can even exist. It’s comically absurd paradox. PhD’s who tell me that they hate me and make me lose my job because I say there’s a difference between flat vs. round Earth math & physics.
I mean like I said…it’s a paradox…it’s a rift in the space time continuum…it should be impossible for it to exist…and yet it does exist, and so that means that it must be on purpose, and have an end to its means.
Maximum psychotic enemy.
If Satan or an entity like Satan is real, I don’t think he cares if they believe in him or not to be used by him/it/whatever. We’ve seen enough to know Evil does exist.
It’s simply staggeringly mind-boggling. I am saying what amounts to the simplest possible logic and facts in the entirety of science. It is the most basic scientific information and consideration possible. And yet.
A degree of insanity of unreason that profound, can only equate to an intended evil equally as profound.
This is a trip.
Now compare that to the communism template.
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals… – BolenReport
Really is quite sick. That’s rules for parasites.
This guy….
“Without convection, radiative equilibrium sets the lapse rate.”
Mincemeat words…simply not meaningful. Lapse rate establishes independent of convection because it originates at the infinitesimal scale of gravity acting on molecules’ potential energy at different heights above the surface. There is no radiative effect on the lapse rate, and the lapse rate is only that value measured as can be calculated from gravitational potential.
dT/dh = -g/Cp + [water vapour LH release] = -6.5 K/km
No radiative effect modulating it.
Literally right there.
adiabatic lapse rate – Glossary of Meteorology (ametsoc.org)
Nice. Consistent with how I’ve shown how to derive it etc.
Lizden must have written this a while ago honestly makes no sense.
*Linzden.
It’s fn gibberish literally.
Hi, Dale here — I’m the one who got the recent results.
There’s a few things, and it should be noted that radiation having an effect on surface temperatures in general does not mean higher CO2 concentrations will lead to catastrophic global warming in particular; the latter is indeed a fraudulent hoax.
Firstly, the claim that “the Sun cannot heat anything to above -18ºC on Earth” doesn’t originate from the climate alarmists. They are not putting the “-18ºC spectrum” there — you are! If you do the same single-layer simplified model with an -18ºC emitter rather than sunlight, you will not get anything higher than -18ºC. In other words this is a strawman. Their -18ºC -> +15ºC math only works because the source spectrum is indeed the 5778K.
That being said, the fact that radiation must have some effect on surface temp (note “some effect”, not “the effect climate alarmists say it does”) is a straightforward consequence of the laws of physics.
The effect of this radiative component specifically is that the surface cools more slowly at night and gets hotter than it would otherwise during the day.
There is just no way around it, no way that it wouldn’t be.
The fact the atmosphere is gas that decreases in temperature with altitude, as opposed to a solid pane of glass, is not particularly relevant. The actual radiative loss can be measured and it is found to be smaller than it would be if there was no backradiation. So it must be having a warming effect. As in the 3-object example, the atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, ‘heating’ the surface, but it is slowing its cooling.
Hope it helps! Of course we should fight against those that want to effectively end or hurt all life on Earth. But doing so with bad science only hinders the cause, not helps it. I wish it were so easy as nearly all scientists (both alarmists and skeptics alike) are wrong about back-radiation, and that the fundamental laws that Clausius discovered nearly two centuries ago are wrong, but alas it is not so.
Cheers,
Dale
Stating the obvious here, but that is a striking Clausius quote… This is the person who discovered the second law of thermodynamics (Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time), explicitly saying backradiation exists?
@ Dale Cloudman
Interesting follow up experiment could be a partial closed environment where there is some outgoing radiation blocking but also allowing some convection and colder fresh air intake. Like 50/50
Anyhow
Hot objects cool slower when the surrounding is warmer, like Newton describes
But that has to do with the direct surrounding
Since the direct surrounding at ground level is mainly hotter because daily directly sunlight and indirectly after surface heating flows through a more compressed region by the mass of the air above it
This must conclude that the 1 on 1 ratio back radiation diagrams are causality incorrect
But climate science is true science…..Just the other day I found out that there is hot air from my radiator in my car that is being blown all over my engine making it even hotter than it otherwise would have been…….. I can’t solve the problem by fitting a larger radiator in my car because that will only make the problem worse……. You gotta love climate science thermodynamics…….
The only way a “Greenhouse Effect” could work is if nearly all LWR is absorbed and redirected at about 6 feet in one direction back to the surface. So, it doesn’t work. A Heat Dome is the closest thing in the atmosphere to a “Greenhouse Effect” by stopping or slowing the lapse rate through pressure gradients limiting vertical convection (temporarily) and is always localized.
@Nepal Yes indeed. Clausius described it that any two bodies radiate heat to each other:
and
He showed that no combination of lenses or mirrors will allow one body to send more radiation to another body of equal temperature, or vice versa. So the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds. Nevertheless, the way it holds is by mutual exchange of radiation — hot emitting to cold, and cold emitting to hot.
Maxwell also knew this in 1872:
And Planck also knew this in 1914, and explicitly wrote how absorption of heat rays is converted into heat:
The theory that bodies mutually radiate heat rays to each other, and that this is the mechanism of radiation, was first proposed by Prevost in 1791 (Memoire Sur l’Equilibre du Feu). It far predates climate alarmism and is not an invention of the climate alarmists.
Every experimental observation and development since this theory has been proposed has confirmed and corroborated this theory. It has been known for over two centuries and has always held up. This is, simply put, the fact of how radiative heat transfer works. Cold does radiate to hot and hot does absorb radiation from colder objects.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds in that this can never result in the cold object heating the hotter object up, between a pair of objects.
However when you have three objects, A hotter than B and B hotter than C… in a steady-state equilibrium you will have an equal flow of heat from A -> B and from B -> C. Now if you decrease the heat flow from B -> C, the result is that B will heat up.
This applies whether it’s conduction, convection, or radiation. If you put a pot of water on the stove on low heat, until it stabilizes at, say, 60ºC… if you now add insulation around the pot, like with a towel, the water temperature will rise. Is this cold towel ‘heating’ the water? No, it is impeding the cooling of the water, reducing the heat flow from the water to the air. But the water heats up.
The same applies to radiation. In the case of Sun -> surface -> sky, the sky radiates far more infrared light than the dead of space would (around 200-300 W/m^2 rather than essentially 0 W/m^2). If the sky radiated 0 W/m^2 as the dead of space, then the surface would cool more rapidly and its temperature would be lower than it is now. But as the sky emits infrared, this is absorbed by the surface, and slows the cooling — which means when the Sun is shining it gets hotter, and when the Sun is not shining, it cools more slowly (ending up at a higher temperature before the Sun comes back up again).
The ploy that the climate alarmists have pulled is taking these irrefutable facts, plus the fact that CO2 does emit more infrared light than regular air, and plugging it into a computer model, tweaking it to show that an increase of CO2 levels will cause catastrophic warming. But that additional effect of more CO2 has only ever been validated by computer models. It is essentially mathematical trickery.
The point is this: we should not deny the basic facts of physics in our attempts to wake the world up to this hoax. The only way it will work is by presenting the facts to people, not by denying them.
Cheers,
Dale
We do need to use only the most modern definitions and explanations of heat though, as especially the really old ones had absolutely no conception about it, and even the more recent Planck one stating “heat rays” is inaccurate. Here are better ones:
So there’s no such thing as a “heat ray” in itself, although colloquially you might use that expression with sense-perception comprehension: “the sun’s rays are heat rays because they feel hot”…sorta but not really…certainly an ice cube has no heat rays and an ice cube will not heat up a filament.
There’s never been a problem about mutual exchange, and the sophists just use it to do the whole retarded “you’re saying that the cool doesn’t emit at all…but it has to emit and if it emits then it has to be absorbed because blackbody” stupidity.
Q = sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4)
Only the difference is heat. And yes when there’s three bodies then you need to assess how each body influence each other body: AB, AC, BC, i.e. computing the heat between each pairing. This would be where the “without another change occurring” would come in, i.e., make a change with C and you can affect the balance between A & B, you can certainly do work in changing things to make heat flow “unnaturally” backwards for a short time, but then things will re-balance and heat can only be hot to cold again once the input work stops having its effect (if it is now gone).
Remember that with light, there is no space or time. You can actually look at it as no emission from cold to hot in Q = sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4), or you could look at it as emission…doesn’t make a difference…what you have is a communication of EM frequencies and what they can do to the material they might interact with. Low frequency cannot naturally excite higher frequency into higher frequency yet, and higher frequency is of course higher temperature…unless one provides an external change which means that WORK has been performed, and then there may be a temporary rebalancing until the work is removed. dU = Q + W = mCpdT. There’s never been a problem about performing some change, which means work, modifying things.
And anyway, the point is still, that the flat-Earth cold-sunshine approach as the admitted foundation of the field cannot possibly lead to a correct understanding of how and why the climate exists, and it certainly is not a good basis for deriving how heat works and what it is, etc.
Sure, whether A emits 100 to a colder B and B emits 80 back for a net of 20, vs A just emitting 20 in the first place, gives the same result mathematically. The latter ultimately doesn’t work for other reasons but we can leave it aside for now.
The point is still that if you have A at 5500ºC, B at 20ºC, and C at -10ºC, and these are all at steady temperatures… heat will be flowing from A to B, and B to C. If we drop C to, say, -270ºC, now more heat will be flowing from B to C, and B will be cooler — say it drops to -50ºC.
Conversely if our starting point were A at 5500ºC, B at -50ºC, and C at -270ºC… if we raise C to -10ºC, this will cause B to warm up, to 20ºC.
None of this violates 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat flowing from hot to cold, or entropy. C becoming warmer, yet still cooler than B, results in B’s temperature increasing — but only because heat is flowing from A to B.
There is really no other way to put it, that’s just simply how it works. It holds for conduction, convection, and radiation. We don’t even have to bring Work into it, it’s just straight up heat transfer.
The relevance here is if A is the Sun, B the surface, and C outer space vs the clear sky… the clear sky is cold but outer space is much colder. The fact that the sky is not as cold as outer space means the surface is warmer than otherwise. And the radiative effect is part of it — there is just no factual basis to discount radiation as part of this. And we can measure that radiative loss with instruments, a pyrgeometer for example, which shows us the heat loss is smaller to the sky than it would be to outer space.
And this also holds true if C remains at the same temperature but becomes a better emitter. This becomes harder to explain if you don’t like the mutual-exchange variant, but nevertheless it does happen in reality and it has been verified experimentally.
We can agree that radiative transfer is not the core, root, be-all end-all of how the climate works and is not a good starting point, and that the climate alarmists have made a massive hoax out of all of it, but it seems silly to entirely discount these well-known and relatively easy-to-demonstrate radiative phenomena.
Which one of these statements do you agree with if any and/or why?
1.
“Every point on the planet’s surface will – at some point during the year – be exposed to exactly 240w/m2 from the sun.”
2.
“Based on the Intermediate Value Theorem, there could be a moment when the solar insolation reaches 240 W/m², assuming the solar irradiance varies continuously at each point on the planet throughout the year.”
I remember emailing with one of the female climate scientists…not many of them…must have been Judith Curry…or there might be one other…not Nova….anyway, she showed me a plot where the poles received like 500 W/m^2 on average compared to the equator which gets the more usual 240 W/m^2, and she was explaining that it is because the poles get full-time Sun half the year. She didn’t at all realize that this would imply that the poles must generate the whether and receive most of the heat from the Sun.
CD your points 1 and 2 seem basically the same?
Yes every point on earth receives the same annual average of 340 W/m^2 . Accounting for albedo that goes down to ~240 W/m^2, but that is no longer the same everywhere because albedo varies over the surface.
Anyway, yes by the intermediate value theorem every point receives 240 W/m^2 at some point in the year. In most places that happens twice every day, near dawn and dusk. near the poles there are days with no direct sun exposure, obviously they do not get 240 W/m^2 at any point on those days.
“to exactly 240w/m2”
seems too arbitrary
Interested into what extent man can control the weather. Lot of conspiracies going around about this lately.
sorry wanted to link this one.
It’s easy to miss but #1 stated “exactly 240w/m2” which is ridiculous. Could reach, probably, likely, at some point somewhere near or such. But considering all the variables it is not an absolution that EXACTLY 240w/m2 will happen on every vector of the planet at some point in a year.
CD, if things change smoothly then it will hit exactly 240 W/m^2 everywhere.
If the insolation is 235 W/m^2 at time A and 245 W/m^2 at time B, and the insolation changes smoothly (no instantaneous jumps), then it must pass through exactly 240 W/m^2 sometime in between.
Nothing in reality changes instantaneously, so this is true.
Mmm interesting! So half the year the pole gets 500 W/m^2 average per day while equator gets 240 W/m^2 per day…
This is a real-world proof that averaging is a bad way to understand the climate. A constant 500 W/m^2 with an average of 500 W/m^2 results in cooler temps than 1300 W/m^2 at day and 0 W/m^2 at night with an average of 240 W/m^2…
Only about 75 W/m² insolation applies to the poles on the best of days. Which is why the tropics receives the greatest surplus of planetary insolation. Polar land albedo is very high, 0.8-0.9 whereas polar ocean albedo is low (about 0.6). Typically, when they average polar insolation they do so as land/ocean average and does not separate. I should clarify, land insolation averages only about 75 W/m². Ocean insolation could reach around 232 W/m^2 with variable results.
So even though the 500-600 W/m^2 sounds it is the IRRADIATION), which is only at the Summer Solstice, the fact is the polar AVERAGE insolation is actually fairly low.
So I’ll try this again.
Only about 75 W/m² {absorption} applies to the poles on the best of days. Which is why the tropics receives the greatest surplus of planetary {absorption}. Polar land albedo is very high, 0.8-0.9 whereas polar ocean albedo is low (about 0.6). Typically, when they average polar insolation they do so as land/ocean average {absorption} and does not separate. I should clarify, land insolation (absorption) averages only about 75 W/m². Ocean insolation (absorption) could reach around 232 W/m^2 with variable results.
So even though the 500-600 W/m^2 sounds fairly high, which is only at the Summer Solstice, the fact is the polar AVERAGE insolation {absorption} is actually fairly low.
My brother dropped this on me I don’t speak military he does. But in a nutshell the DoD is giving the military the power to assist local law enforcement and have permission to use lethal force (shoot US citizens).
Right before an election they plan on stealing.
Welcome comrade, to the United Soviet States of America.
Wow
And millions of illegal immigrants are registered to vote in Blue States. California has made it illegal to ask for ID. A whistleblower has indicated plains clothes feds will be at voting booths all across America.
Is this really the state of education that the very concept of “work” is just not taught or not understood?
“This is so wrong. Beat on an anvil with a hammer, you warm both of them up. Mechanical action alone increases system temperature. Increase mean kinetic energy, increase temperature.”
Reading the comments here…..I think the back radiation story (slowed cooling) is simply muddying the waters over the concept of Heat and Energy…… No one has ever said that cold objects don’t emit energy…… but a hotter object already contains those frequencies and as such will not absorb them…….The assertion that a pyrogemeter pointed at a cloud establishes a boundary between the surface and space preventing the earth from cooling as quickly than it otherwise would is a complete misnomer…….because if the atmosphere wasn’t there the surface temperature would be 121C during the daytime…….. The earth’s albedo alone proves that the atmosphere PREVENTS the earth from absorbing energy…….. The energy that does make it through to the surface is still extremely intense with a heating potential that that far exceeds the stated average of 15C……. So NO it’s blatantly obvious that the atmosphere is 2 dimensional…….It keeps temperatures COOL ENOUGH during the day time to support life……And warm enough at nighttime to maintain life…….. Otherwise we would be like the moon…!!!!!!
If I could make a further comment……What the “slowed cooling” proponents are doing is seperating or differentiating the surface from the atmosphere as two seperate systems which they are not they are interconnected….. Climate is the CHAOS that is created because the energy from the Sun is NOT absorbed evenly or uniformly….. This is mostly because of the shape of the earth let alone the obvious other factors…….. This why we have Hadley cells etc…….We have gravitational effects etc……This all causes chaos ……. The earth system is simply processing the chaotic absorption and emitting of energy and once processed we arrive at our blackbody spectra…….STOP with the slow cooling crap that actually IS the real straw man here!!!!!
If you read some of my previous posts you see why I use the analogy of a cars radiator…..(I’m sure Joseph and the other scientific brains could explain this better than me)……..But the slowed cooling nonsense is exactly the same principle as stating that a cars radiator is preventing the engine from cooling down quicker than it otherwise would……. And by increasing atmospheric CO2 is the same as increasing the size of the cars radiator……..Which is complete nonsense…….The car engine will run COLDER with a larger radiator just as increasing “greenhouse gases” will cool the planet……..So the slowed cooling nonsense only presents ONE side of the equation…….If the planets ability to COOL was impaired then the planet would ALSO absorb less energy with no increase in temperatures……. They seem to think slowed cooling is an isolated issue from energy absorption…….It’s DUMB BRAINDEAD flat earth science…..
In Tim Casey’s essay, The Shattered Greenhouse, he points out that by Kirchoff’s law you can increase the absorptivity of the atmosphere and that will increase the emissivity equivalently but it will not change the temperature. So, I’m assuming that increasing CO2 will not increase the temperature by that application of Kirchoff.
They love to use Kirchoff’s Law even though it can only be used in limited localized situations. KL applies to a system in thermal equilibrium, in fact it must be in perfect thermal equilibrium to appropriate the law exactly.
Stewart’s Law of Equivalence states that the emissive power of a body is proportional to its absorptive power at the same temperature and wavelength. I think that applies better to our Earth system.
If a system emitted exactly all the same wavelengths as it absorbed the temperature would never change.
And we know the law required to increase temperature. DU = Q -W.
More energy is required or work to increase the internal energy of a system than that system can emit. Work in the Earth’s system can be applied to something as simple as sate variables (pressure, volume).
KL can be used in LTE (local thermal equilibrium) and even then, it is a quasi-implementation of the law, more like guidelines as nothing in the atmosphere is truly in stable thermal equilibrium.
*state variables
this isn’t a problem for Kirchhoff’s Law though, because it says emissivity and absorptivity are equal, which is not the same as saying that the power emitted and power absorbed are equal. Kirchhoff’s law is very widely applicable, except very high in the atmosphere and where local thermal equilibrium is not achieved (that means that the gas is so sparse that collisions between gas particles become slower than the interaction with radiation).
basically, Kirchhoff’s law is valid anywhere you can define a temperature. So you can give up on Kirchhoff’s law because nothing is ever technically in thermal equilibrium — but then you’d have to give up on asking what temperature it is in the room, or in the air outside, because technically those aren’t in thermal equilibrium either. But obviously that would be silly.
Thanks, CD and others.
I looked up Stewart’s law. Found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjLX0YDuFqY and more.
Apparently Kirchoff built his law from Stewart’s work but didn’t give credit to Stewart.
I am writing a synopsis for congress members and sending a copy of Tim Casey’s essay to some that are involve in COP29. I don’t think they’ll know the difference between the two. Not sure of the impact, but gotta try.
Every time I hear some politician say we need to act to stop climate change, I want to pull my hair out.
Thanks, Nepal.
I might not be following you right after all you do have quite a few years of physics over myself.
Point 1.
You can use just about anything as a mathematical construct for isolated applications (such as a specific focus of a model). That does not mean it actually applies to real world scenarios. All too often science is too caught up in math equations, models, isolated formulas which certainly have uses but cannot replace real world applications.
Point 2.
KL and SL are more applicable in an isolated IR environment (which is why the climate cabal love using KL for IR is the only science that exists in their world), neither take into account conduction, latent heat, convection and the lapse rates (another physicist pointed that out that conducts these experiments). Real world applications that are not completely IR related do not function as “WL in equals WL out”. KL does not apply to the Sun at all, for example.
Pont 3.
However,
“emissivity and absorptivity are equal” at thermal equilibrium that is the actual law.
I agree that once thermal equilibrium is established the general rule of KL takes effect. Doesn’t matter how TE is achieved, once achieved, regardless of the conditions, the energy flow maintains an equilibrium of temperature.
But,
Earth has an average T but it is not in thermal equlibrium and as a system KL does not apply.
CD and Nepal,
I am just trying to come up with a simple explanation of why the earth’s atmosphere is not a radiation trap that is on the road to over heating because of CO2. From the evidence I’ve read here and elsewhere, that’s the truth. See ourwoods.org.
I think my choice of Tim Casey’s essay with a short synopsis thereof will make some of the congressional members stop and think about it logically.
My synopsis just points out the the atmosphere cannot trap solar radiation and emits what it receives based on real science. Casey’s essay gets right to the point and goes into detail about that and the fraud of AGW. I understand your point about the differences between Kirchoff and Stewart, but I’m not sure that will matter for this effort. Maybe later, I might need to get into the weeds.
At least the new administration calls AGW a hoax, which is right.
Any suggestions will be welcome. The presentation must be short and sweet or it will not be read.
My synopsis, so far:
Gustov Kirchoff(1824-1887) building on the work of Balfour Stewart(1828-1887) defined thermodynamic law that states material with the ability to absorb radiation has an equal ability to radiate it, thus maintaining temperature of the material. The temperature of the atmosphere cannot be raised, by making compositional changes, more than the sun can heat it . Adding more CO2 will not raise the temperature of the atmosphere per Kirchoff’s Law and Stewart’s Law of Equivalence. Any increase in atmospheric radiation absorptivity by adding carbon dioxide(CO2) will be accompanied by an equal increase in emissivity, thus maintaining its original temperature. The only way to raise the temperature of the atmosphere is to increase the amount of incident radiation from the sun striking the earth. That is why it is warmer in summer than it is in winter.
If I had the money, I would arrange a meeting with the congress and fly you all there to speak.
CD,
You’re right that Kirchhoff’s law doesn’t work for a nonuniform system as a whole. But I’m going to argue that it almost always applies, and very precisely at that.
Kirchhoff’s law applies to a system in thermal equilibrium, and also one that’s in “local thermal equilibrium”, which means at any given point there is a small region that is in thermal equilibrium. Basically, if at any given location you can define a temperature, Kirchhoff’s law applies at that location. So it can work for a large chunk of material if it’s at a uniform temperature, or if the material has a temperature gradient across it, then Kirchhoff’s law still holds for any point on the material individually.
But all these caveats apply to thermodynamics as a whole. When thermodynamics works, Kirchhoff’s law works. And thermodynamics is perhaps the most reliable scientific theory we have, because it is derived purely from the statistics of large numbers. A 1L bottle of air contains almost a million million million million molecules, so the statistics of large numbers are very precise. It only fails in situations where the concept of temperature doesn’t make sense, which is pretty rare. Mostly in extremely rarefied gases (far up in the atmosphere).
So it does apply even in the presence of conduction, and even in the sun’s photosphere. But it has to be used correctly — not for a nonuniform system as a whole, and realizing absorptivity is not the same as total absorption!
KL states in thermal equilibrium. The Sun is not a perfect absorber it is a good emitter. The Sun doesn’t absorb photons from the Earth, for example, but it can emit small levels in that wavelength. What is a perfect absorber? A blackhole.
Lots of people defend KL but I think it is defended incorrectly or perhaps rather, applied and/or taught incorrectly.
LTE can break quickly, so in that instance it is a mathematical formula. “Real-world applications often require adjustments to account for factors like conduction, convection, latent heat, and the adiabatic lapse rate, which are not fully captured by simple radiative models.” in a nutshell what Ken P stated, an experimental physicist.
However, and I will stress this once again the actual law is, “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed,” this applies to a perfect radiator, as in a blackbody, it is theoretical not an absolute. The formula itself is rather simple.
ε = W’/W
ε is the emissivity of the object.
W’ is the power radiated by the object.
W is the power radiated by a perfect blackbody at the same temperature.
But all of this is moot I’m interested in what Joe thinks of it as he is not fond of its over abuse in climate change.
CD,
I think you are a bit mixed up about Kirchhoff’s law. It does not say that, at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object is equal to the power absorbed. Actually, that statement is a general truth about perfect thermodynamic equilibrium — perfect equilibrium means everything is exactly balanced and static.
Kirchhoff’s law is a stronger statement that absorptivity equals emissivity. This is true in perfect thermo equilibrium, but also in cases of local thermodynamic equilibrium, for example when a solid or gas is internally in equilibrium at temperature T, but interacting with radiation from a body at a different temperature.
You say you don’t believe it applies in cases where conduction is present, but as far as I know all experimental evidence shows it does. It is very core thermodynamics. Joe shows you don’t need to tear down thermodynamics to make good points about climate change. I would still like Joe to work out all the details of the model with night and day to show it reproduces the actual temperature of earth well.
Alex, one concern I have with your source (Casey) is that it says absorptivity / emissivity can’t affect the temperature of a body. But albedo is just the earth’s absorptivity at solar wavelengths. And everyone agrees making earth more reflective would cool it down. Does he address this issue?
Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation
Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation:
For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.
emissivity ε = absorptivity α
As a result of this law, heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system, and the second law of thermodynamics is still satisfied.
In general, both the emissivity, ε, and the absorptivity, α, of a surface depending on the temperature and the radiation wavelength. Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation, postulated by German physicist Gustav Robert Kirchhoff, states that a surface’s emissivity and absorptivity at a given temperature and wavelength are equal.
Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation:
For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.
emissivity ε = absorptivity α
-Nuclear Physics
still applies only to TE and a perfect BB is still theoretical
CD,
What I think he’s saying is that increasing the absorptivity of the atmosphere won’t change the temperature because emissivity increases equally. I think it might change local temperature temporarily, but would not change the whole atmospheric average temperature.
Casey:”Regardless of internal complexities, a whole body ultimately can only emit the exact amount of radiation it receives, or a lesser amount corresponding to a lower pre-equilibrium temperature if thermal equilibrium has not been reached. By increasing absorption, emission is increased – which was confirmed experimentally by Stewart (1858, 1860a, 1860b) and Kirchhoff (1859 & 1860).
…
This same law of physics, experimentally conifrmed by numerous scientists, dictates that the temperature of the atmosphere cannot be changed simply by increasing absorptivity. “Kirchhoff’s law” thereby functions as the key to understanding the behaviour of passive body temperature in constant incident radiation.”
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
CD,
Casey does not discuss albedo.
CD,
One more from Casey:
“However, the amount of heat available to a system due to increased absorption, is lost to corresponding emission. Thus a change in materials without a change in incident radiation -the radiation that falls on a body- can, at most, alter the distribution of heat within those materials.”
Q can only be applied if it raises T according to the 1st LOT. By playing fast and loose with terminology you can manipulate science to accommodate the GHGE. That’s why terminology, what things actually mean, are crucial in science especially dealing with contrarians of climate science.
Often times “heat” is simply energy, if you can substitute “heat” for energy and it is still thermodynamically correct it is just energy. Q, thermodynamic heat, is based on an increase in temperature. As stated, all heat is energy, but not all energy is “thermodynamic” heat that can raise the T of a system. And what is required? W or Q.
If then the system does not change T and is therefore in thermal equilibrium, KL applies.
Are you saying you don’t agree with using Casey’s arguments to present to congressional members as evidence that GHE is invalid and nonexistent? That is what I’m trying to do.
Maybe he should have used “energy” in place of “heat”?
It’s a very common use of the terms, mixing heat and energy. So much so it can’t be undone. That’s why I try and distinguish heat (generic which can be replaced with energy) and thermodynamic heat which can increase temperature. Just stating the distinctions. I doubt it matters on a common topic scale or dealing with those who do not have a better grasp of the terms. I suppose it would create more confusion than solve it in that position.
When I say no thermodynamic heat enters or leaves the planet they go nuts. So not worth the trouble unless you are mocking a troll.
CD,
I had noticed the casual use of heat where technically it should have been energy, but I figured politicians wouldn’t notice and Casey covers the errors of Arrhenius very well. I also thought pointing out that increased CO2 cannot heat the atmosphere due to increased radiation of IR from it would have some impact. I don’t know how many will take notice of the arguments showing the GHE is invalid, but I cannot sit back and wait for someone else to do it.
Did you read Casey’s essay? I posted a link in a previous post.
Thanks for your input. I get more educated every time I read content here. After all, I am a layman.
Nepal,
I apologize. I just realized that was you that questioned my source, not CD.
Anyway, all input is welcome.
Yeah that was me.
Albedo and absorptivity are one and the same concept. So one could reasonably ask, clearly changing albedo would change the temperature, so doesn’t that mean changing absorptivity affects temperature?
I think it has to…
In a normal world if it absorbs it emits. Not sure climate clown science exists in a normal world.
Nepal,
I never heard of albedo being the same thing as absorptivity but more of a rating as to what is blocked from being absorbed and absorptivity as a rating of the ability to absorb.
Nepal,
My understanding:
In the moment of absorption the emission will be the same.
If you block or reflect incoming EMR, absorption would be less and temperature would drop, if emission stayed elevated. Eventually emission would fall to match absorption as equilibrium is approached.
Albedo is a measurement of the ability to reflect EMR
Absorptivity is a measurement of how much EMR can be absorbed.
I don’t see them as the same thing.
Nepal,
I was considering what CO2 might do with that IR as it won’t absorb shorter wave from the sun. I didn’t consider albedo as being in play for that.
I think what I wrote would be wrong if the absorber was dirt, which would buffer the short wave energy from the sun and emit it later in the form of longwave IR. Albedo would certainly be in play for this situation.
With the right manipulation you can achieve very high temperatures.
“Solar Concentrators Shown to Generate 1,050°C Industrial Heat”
Solar Concentrators Shown to Generate 1,050°C Industrial Heat | NextBigFuture.com
I can take my magnifying glass outside and start a fire. That’s a solar concentrator. A nice source of heat during the day.
They could use that to create steam during the day, run a generator and store the electricity in batteries for nighttime use. I wonder how big it is.
Alex,
For an opaque material, incoming light has only two options: it can be absorbed or reflected. So absorptivity is just 1 – reflectivity, or 1 – albedo. That is why they express the same thing.
Now albedo is always used to refer to absorptivity of visible light, whereas “absorptivity” can be used for visible, infrared, or anything else.
But the point stands, albedo definitely affects temperature, aka absorptivity affects temperature. That’s my concern about Casey
Nepal,
If albedo is the same as absorptivity, Casey’s argument stands as he could have chosen either word to make his point.
But, he was discussing absorption and emission as expressed by Kirchoff.
Nepal,
would you agree that if absorption and emission are equal the the temperature or energy contained in an object would remain stable?
Nepal,
I looked again at what you said “absorptivity is just 1 – reflectivity, or 1 – albedo”. You are saying that reflectivity and albedo are the same. You are not saying absorptivity and albedo are the same.
Nepal & CD,
It is always helpful for me to discuss things with knowledgeable people on this board. Thanks for your helpful input. This is the only place I know of where I can get honest input.
Alex, I completely agree, it’s a good place to have free discussions here.
When I say absorptivity and reflectivity are the same concept, I mean they contain the same information. One is just 1 minus the other. Sort of like monthly salary and yearly salary — different numbers, same information.
Specifically, if temperature depends on reflectivity, it must depend on absorptivity and vice versa.
We know the earth’s temperature depends on albedo (reflectivity), which means it must depend on absorptivity.
Yes, if absorption (energy in) equals emission (energy out) then you are in a steady state, and the temperature will be stable. But be careful to distinguish absorption (energy in) and absorptivity (percent of incoming energy that is converted to energy in). If you suddenly increase absorptivity, then even though the emissivity will also increase to match (Kirchhoff’s law) that does NOT mean absorption will equal emission! The absorption will increase suddenly. The emission will also increase suddenly but not enough to equal absorption. Then the temperature will slowly rise which increases emission further, until it equals absorption.
I can show this with math, but I’m not sure how helpful it would be. Let me know.
In a nutshell, if you put a mirror covered ball under a heat lamp, it won’t get too hot. If you then paint all the the mirrors black (increase absorptivity), it will get much hotter. This is fully consistent with Kirchhoff’s law, but not with Casey’s claim.
Nepal,
I understand absorptivity to be capability to absorb. An object may or may not absorb all it is capable of depending on incident radiation which might vary due to albedo or reflectivity.
But what is absorbed will be emitted regardless of albedo and that’s what I think my synopsis was saying. I nor Casey make no mention of albedo because it doesn’t come into play unless you want to discuss what might cause a difference in input, which I wasn’t. I was really only echoing Casey because I’m sending his essay along as documentation for my synopsis. I came here to see if I had any gross errors, which no body has pointed out.
There is a lot of evidence CO2 doesn’t cause the atmosphere to heat up and that’s what I’m trying to get across to our esteemed politicians. I study this stuff so I can use real science to convince them.
My main objective is to plant the idea in their heads that there is something wrong with the IPCC’s analysis and give them an alternative analysis. I don’t think any of the congress is going to get that deep into the weeds as what you are discussing.
I do appreciate your input. It helps me formulate my thoughts.
Nepal,
Here is the whole document I’m sending with Casey’s essay:
The causes of Climate Change / Global Warming are changes in solar output and in planetary positions relative to the sun and each other, not increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Gustov Kirchoff(1824-1887) building on the work of Balfour Stewart(1828-1887) defined thermodynamic law that states material with the ability to absorb radiation also has an equal ability to emit it, thus the temperature of the material will not change. Making compositional changes to the atmosphere will not raise the temperature more than the sun can heat it. Adding more carbon dioxide(CO2) will not raise the temperature of the atmosphere per Kirchoff’s Law and Stewart’s Law of Equivalence. Any increase in atmospheric absorption of radiation by adding carbon dioxide(CO2) will be countered by an equal increase in emission of that radiation, thus leaving the temperature unchanged. The earth, as a whole, emits as much energy as it absorbs from the sun. The only way to raise the temperature of the atmosphere is to increase the amount of incident radiation from the sun striking the earth. On June 20 in the USA, Virginia gets 340% of the solar radiation that it gets on December 20. That is why it is warmer in the summer than it is in the winter.
The classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant by the EPA must be removed because it is not based on science and is invalid.
Carbon Dioxide is a colorless, tasteless and harmless gas that facilitates photosynthesis so we can live on this planet.
Spending money to try to stop climate change by removing carbon dioxide is a fool’s errand because carbon dioxide does not cause climate change. Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will have disastrous effects. If it gets low enough, photosynthesis will stop, killing all life on earth. The climate has been changing since the Earth was created. Puny human efforts cannot stop it.
The efforts to block sunlight are at the very least fraught with potentially very dangerous outcomes for the earth, humans and all animal life, so it must be stopped.
Turned on the TV and Fox Live is broadcasting COP29. This is what we are fighting. Most everyone is there to see how much money they can get out of the wealthy nations.
Alex, the bolded statements aren’t correct (to the best of my knowledge):
and
This is the point I have been raising, that Kirchhoff’s law does not imply that temperature is independent of absorptivity / emissivity, for example changing the absorptivity of the earth (1 – albedo) would change the temperature.
Casey’s derivation showing that temperature is independent of emissivity is not right, because it implicitly assumes the object is in perfect, global thermodynamic equilibrium. Which is not the case, even approximately, for earth.
Nepal,
From all I’ve read the earth is not in thermal equilibrium at any time, but if CO2 absorbs, it also emits equally, is not a source of energy and will not raise the temperature of the atmosphere.
I know that if you change albedo the amount of energy absorbed will change and so the energy emitted.
What would you say about the IR energy from the surface absorbed by CO2? I have read that It loses the gained energy virtually immediately. If it does not hold onto the energy it cannot cause an accumulation of energy and heat the atmosphere.
Nepal,
How else would you raise the temperature of the atmosphere without increasing the incident radiation striking the earth?
Nepal,
My question should have been: How would you explain in layman’s terms and 250 words or less why CO2 does not heat the atmosphere.
If you do that for me, I would really appreciate your effort.
CO2 can heat parts of the atmosphere where convection is limited. GHGs def heat parts of the atmosphere. That is not the acclaimed “GHGE” where a warmed atmosphere in turn heats a much warmer surface.
You don’t think much about the differences in dealing with say tropical insolation in terms of absorption and emissivity. At the poles, however, I’ve learned 3 factors are relevant: Insolation, absorption and surface reflection. Strong SW IR can still melt ice (absorbed) even if visible light is often reflected.
Nepal & CD,
Prior to reading Casey’s essay, I had thought that Nasif Nahle made a strong case by his calculations and that of Hoyt Hottel(1954) and Bo Leckner(1972) that CO2 really was not a strong absorber or emitter. Hottel stated that by his experiments that CO2 had an emissivity close to zero below 33॰C. As most of earth is below that, I didn’t see how it did much of anything to the atmosphere.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
Click to access Mean_Free_Path.pdf
Then I found a post by Joseph E Postma: “Carbon dioxide interacts with photons having a wavelength which falls into three, fairly narrow bands from 2.7 to 15 μm. The reaction can be best described as diffusion of these photons – not absorption as photons are emitted almost immediately with a slight Stoke’s shift. These photons are emitted in a random direction and do not transfer thermal energy to the molecule. As I discussed earlier, these photons cannot transfer thermal energy back to the surface as a general rule and will eventually find their way into space or be absorbed by water vapor or dust in the atmosphere. If absorsorption occurs in the atmosphere, then the surface has still cooled and thermal transport is away from the surface in the same manner as any heat sink.”
Maybe I should use those to build my simple story from, as there is reliable science and Nepal asseses Casey’s assumption as “wrong”.
Evidence is clear that where water vapor is limited, turbulence is low and skies are clear nocturnal temps drop dramatically. NO GHGE. Convective currents dominate the lower atmosphere.
Nepal,
Thanks for saving me grief by pointing out fallacies in Casey’s essay.
CD,
Thanks for the logical analysis you present.
Thanks to both of you for the kick in the head. You’ve saved me embarrassment!
Back to work on putting together a simple story for the U.S. congress.
I still need a short explanation as to why CO2 does not cause global warming or climate change.
I am looking at taking a different tact.
Quoting the first 3 paragraphs of Carl Allen’s post at https://climateofsophistry.com/2015/05/16/ontological-mathematics-is-the-answer-to-ghe-based-climate-alarm/#comment-23106
Showing that earth is not retaining any excess energy might be a good approach to convincing some of congress.
It’s simply not possible for the minuscule fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere to ever have enough energy to measurably influence temperatures near the surface.
bwdave,
That’s most likely true, but if I am going to prove that to the US congress, I will need irrefutable empirical evidence, which I think I have found in Carl Allen’s post referenced previously. If there are other occurrences of such irrefutable empirical evidence, it would be helpful to me if someone would post here.
bwdave, the CO2 doesn’t “have enough energy”, because it doesn’t have any energy to heat its own heat source. Nothing does, so it wouldn’t matter if the “miniscule fraction” increased to 50%, there would still be no measurable influence.
Just thinking of words and meanings. Another trick is accepting the language of climate change as Joe has pressed for what? a decade so far? GHGs do not slow cooling of the surface they are part of the process of energy transfer to the atmosphere.
Feynman had away with words.
“Let us begin by stating the first law, the conservation of energy: if one has a system and puts heat into it, and does work on it, then its energy is increased by the heat put in and the work done. We can write this as follows: The heat QQ put into the system, plus the work WW done on the system, is the increase in the energy UU of the system; the latter energy is sometimes called the internal energy:
Change in U=Q+W.
Change in U=Q+W.
The change in UU can be represented as adding a little heat ΔQΔQ and adding a little work ΔWΔW:
ΔU=ΔQ+ΔW,
ΔU=ΔQ+ΔW,
which is a differential form of the same law. We know that very well, from an earlier chapter.
The second law
Now, what about the second law of thermodynamics? We know that if we do work against friction, say, the work lost to us is equal to the heat produced. If we do work in a room at temperature TT, and we do the work slowly enough, the room temperature does not change much, and we have converted work into heat at a given temperature. What about the reverse possibility? Is it possible to convert the heat back into work at a given temperature? The second law of thermodynamics asserts that it is not. It would be very convenient to be able to convert heat into work merely by reversing a process like friction. If we consider only the conservation of energy, we might think that heat energy, such as that in the vibrational motions of molecules, might provide a goodly supply of useful energy. But Carnot assumed that it is impossible to extract the energy of heat at a single temperature. In other words, if the whole world were at the same temperature, one could not convert any of its heat energy into work: while the process of making work go into heat can take place at a given temperature, one cannot reverse it to get the work back again. Specifically, Carnot assumed that heat cannot be taken in at a certain temperature and converted into work with no other change in the system or the surroundings.”
Why it doubled have no idea
Anything that disagrees with the politically funded narrative is “misinformation”.
New paper about detecting climate misinformation on Twitter/X
Oooh yah they badly want to use AI to curate all access to information according to their prescription.
Bet they are pissed Trump won. No more funding…I hope.
Joe,
if your bored.
Here is the solution to the heat generating sphere problem showing that for the radiative cooling case, adding a shell around the sphere causes the source to get hotter. You don’t believe this is possible because you don’t understand heat transfer.
From some guy on Twitter who insults a lot and proves little.
I believe this is a re-invention of the “shell games”.
Like Fourier said, this solution doesn’t apply. The atmosphere is not a solid shell.
The Sun heats the Earth and created the climate…not backradiation or slowed cooling.
SO what was the point of the post just to posture his ego?
He’s a mechanical engineer, often referred to as a failed physicist (no offense to engineers).
Yes.
That solution does not show that the open atmosphere would create the climate with a greenhouse effect with -18C solar input. The postulates are not correct at the outset.
Most engineers know they aren’t physicists but the climate cabal seems chock full of wannabe physicists who always end of being engineers. Kind of weird.
Typical response from them. Might be the same persona who has taken on so many different names over the years, just changing profiles.
@isaacscradle
LOL He has no clue how to solve the problem, so like you he makes excuses. Let me guess, he doesn’t have a PhD. People that are good at physics love to solve physics problems. He’s not good at physics.
To wit, I reponded.
It’s because as far as he’s concerned, you’re an idiot. Text book nerds never make great physicists, you think only in text book constraints.
He’s mad you dismissed his self idealized greatness. 😂
Think of how insane it is that we cannot tell them that the atmosphere is not a solid barrier. They can’t take it….not even that. Same as we can’t tell them that the Earth is not a flat plane. What kind of insanity is this.
Who gets a PhD in engineering? I thought most of those guys like geologists just get a degree and go off to work. Am I missing something?
So he’s a professor at a R1 university, that explains a lot.
Especially the intolerable arrogance.
CD & Nepal,
I am going with some well accepted data to show CO2 does nothing. I know CD, you said radiation reactive gases can warm the air locally, but I don’t think that small amount of warming is going to do much to the overall atmosphere.
According to proxy data, the temperature during the peak of the last interglacial 128,000 ya was 4°C+ warmer than the peak of the current interglacial and proxies for CO2 show that the level was 285ppm. By the IPCC’s calculations, there would have had to be 1100ppm to achieve that temperature.
Another point is that according to all of the ice core data, temperature rises before CO2 levels rise.
So, that’ll be my story.
Good story!
Alex,
simple and to the point.
I think like this guy I’ve been talking to they use advanced education to hide the lie of climate change in so many equations the average person can’t follow it.
CD,
I can’t follow more than the simplest physics equations that get posted here, but I can follow logic.
OMG CD…I’m looking at that solution more closely. It makes the exact same logical contradiction which I solved in my first book!!!! Lol!
Looking, his solution is when r0/r1=1, which is r0=r1. In other words the shell IS the surface of the sphere, and it then has two different temperatures at the same time…the 2=1 thing i showed in Cold Light of Day book. Wow!!! Haha! So great! I’m pretty sure he just blundered his way into it but didn’t notice!
He has r0=r1, which means that the shell is the new sphere surface and so can only have the temperature that the sphere would, but then there’s two possible temperatures with a factor of 2 ratio between them, which is impossible because the shell has to be the sphere surface itself if r0=r1.
Pretty sure that’s what I’m looking at upon inspection.
And besides anyway, that solution still wouldn’t predict the known climate with -18C sphere raw input.
X just locked me out for my last reply about this. Wow.
I leave the math to the guys who spent 10 years learning it. I stick to the simple equations.
What was your last reply? I kept getting false flagged all the time for almost every post. I finally put in my bio “Elon please stop false flagging my comments on every post.” It stopped.
Mann groupies for example will mass report opposition on any post to try and get the person banned.
That is just astonishing JP.
I’ve just come across my maths that tracks your Cold Light calculations.
Can you spell out how you found the contradiction here? I’ll flounder somewhat otherwise.
Newtonscradle should thank you for spotting this. Any true scientist would, but looking at his form you’ll most likely get ad-homo-ed.
If r0/r1=1 then r0=r1 which means the shell is touching the sphere, in which case they must be the same temperature. His solution shows 2 temperatures when they can only be one temperature.
So explain this like I’m 5 (well your daughter was prob smarter at 5 but still)
Is the sphere in thermal equilibrium or in steady state? He says SS.
Which looked correct to me but well I’m not a genius.
His reply,
“Very good Chris. Now try to get your friend Joseph to understand that the arrow means in the limit as, not is equal to.”
The bot is a sophist. It’s not real. These are not real humans who argue like this, arguing over irrelevant side details and ignoring the whole basis elements of cold sunshine flat earth and the adiabatic gradient. They just argue into irrelevant cul de sacs.
Thermal equilibrium is steady state. No heat can be acting if no temperature is changing.
Heat changes temperature. No temperature change, no heat.
So in the sphere say temps differ from core to outer shell, that still applies to thermal equilibrium due to cooling rate, not an exchange in Q?
That’s tricky.
Well not for a physicist, but we common folk.
Only thing to really get is the temperature of the sphere surface…inside who knows but easiest thing is to just make surface output uniform hence single surface T.
Ontological Learning:
Polymath = “Many Learning” i.e knowing a lot of interconnected subjects like say Astrotheology.
https://rumble.com/v5ye88b-1000000-must-watch-see-this-before-it-is-deleted.html
For a more detailed version see:
You have all these AC Hockney disciples obsessing over mathematics when its not arithmatic they should be studying directly but knowledge integration. The Theory of Everything as a concise understanding of the laws of this realm and how it applies to you in this matrix and how some “the controllers” aka archons have access to the manual but burnt our copies. Access to the “information” is ascension back to our unique status as beings created in our creators image. And that is higher than angels and any other light being. We are the dogs bollocks of creation the gonads of greatness. All wrapped up in a coocoon of misery and anti-knowledge and shit to keep us docile little batteries. Thing is, it’s over we are BACK! BIG STYLE!
Stop being buthurt about Hockney.
They Hockney are the best polymaths I have ever encountered.
Been a while. Had a lot to do. However shout out to CD who has kept the flame lit.
His unwavering determination and knowledge is commendable and will be rewarded I am sure. He is the opitome of revolutionaries who have taken the fight to the archons. CD we salute you.
p.s I did see your comment re. someone enquired about my whereabouts. That was nice of you thank you sir. I appreciate you.
Now onto the next phase.
Joe thanks for this platform, and thanks for allowing me to post. Do you have any new ideas of how we can take the fight to the enemy? Not just on Climate but the whole gammut of attempted destruction of our planet. There is a wind of change blowing:
Sorry couldnt resist a song for old time sake. Cheers
Z
Not Butthurt about Hockney. Just his followers. They don’t get it. And yes Hockney is the best Polymath of our generation. Chill.
Why are you always aggressive to me?
You have criticised Hockneys new Ontics work. It is the same group.
Clif High has O Physics. i.e Ontological Physics. I have Ontological Learning.
I have a database. Online presence. No-one has copyright on “Ontological”
You have added your ideas on the ontology. Why the antagonistic attitude?
Z,
You’re welcome.
Joe is just Joe.
Reminds me of my brother.
“Grabs your nuts and squeeze until your remember you’re a man.” One of my brother’s comments. 😂
People like you are the reason the work doesnt spread as you want to be “special”.
Well duh you are just another dude who has read the Hockney works, and you still haven’t fathomed out what it all means lol.
Stop being a prick and calm down.
CD ……Ouch lol
By the way Joe. I subscribe to Mike Hockneys Patreon. Do you? Just asking.
So now the insults are over, can we talk like rational people, or are you going to hold a weird grudge against me. You like the word “Butthurt”. You say it a lot. Makes me wonder. I did psychology hmmmmm
Rather than saying there is good info in those videos like the Euler equations and how they relate to the ontological landscape, you just attack me. Why? I am just giving missing pieces to the jigsaw. Is that so bad….Joe???? Do you resent me for posting this important info? I am trying to co-operate to synergise. The whole illuminist movement is fragmented. The whole picture is in our grasp but it seems there are individuals who want that info to be for them or for them to reveal like they are some sort of prophet. Well bigger minds than you Joe will release the truth whether you like it or not or whether you can take the credit for it or not.
Hermetic law says there is nothing new under the sun. We only remember what we once knew. As above so below. As within so without.
Tick Tock………………………………………………
Relating to the video, was it Einstein that said ” Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous”
I approve of you Z.
Might have time to respond to each later. Working right now.
Yes right Z, you did point out Hockney disciples. I am not aware of any, other than myself, hence why I got defensive. Whoever the pretenders are on FB and elsewhere are fakers…parasitical attachments waiting for Hockney to do something for them. I think that that was Hockney’s strategy actually…to see who are the parasites and who are independent thinkers and developers. Pretty sure the patreon is producing nothing new, is just AI LLM bot rehasher of old stuff, or some faker anyway. At this point, if noone is seeing a real name and face, then it should be discounted. No one else has done anything like what I’ve done with it. Not even Morgue…Morgue is just another parasite…perhaps he had good intentions but he didn’t have the background to actually develop anything. But, parasites do like to pretend, so who knows.
As far as what to do. I have what to do. What did they always say? Revalue all values? Destroy scientific materialism? Revolutionize spiritualism? I have the material to do that.
There is nothing more disruptive in the intellectual history of Man than that modern science has succumbed to flat Earth theory without knowing it even though it is right in front of their face.
You’re really well-read Z. Maybe almost as much as me. Is there any other even in the entirety of our philosophic, religious, scientific history that is as absurd as flat Earth theory in modern physics? It’s not just a saying, not just an analogy, not just a joke…it literally and truly is flat Earth theory straight up, in peer-review, as I’ve shown and quoted, ad nauseum, etc. There is NOTHING in our entire history of philosophy which even comes close to approaching this level of absurdity. This is the most explosive, disruptive information in history, the most disruptive exposure in history.
It would be very, very bad for the controller elites for this to get out widely because it ridicules them so badly…a perfect example of the Emporer with no Clothes. It would destroy any sense of respect and expected demand of order the elites assume from us. They would be laughing stock pariahs of intellectual idiocy, if this got out. Imagine the beautiful documentaries we could make showing with nice graphic what I show you guys here with my own crappy graphics? Imagine if it was made nice looking so that normal people would see it and get it rather than just us who can understand the technical elements about it?
It would be the most damaging thing which ever occurred to the controller enslavers in history. It would necessitate the revaluation of all the value which they enslave us with. And, it would be the BEST thing which ever could have served humanity and the public…the best thing ever.
We have what to do here. The entire Illuminist project from Hockney et. al. now rests here, with me, culminated here in this spot. Hockney turned me into a polymath and I used that to expose the worst blunder our enslavers could have ever possibly made. Hence why I ask for donations.
I don’t know how to turn this into a movement, but what I have here is EVERYTHING which Hockney et al ever asked for.
The GHGE has changed versions so many times it must be a chameleon. I do hear this version more often of late.
“GHGs increase the optical thickness of the atmosphere to IR radiation. This means emission of IR to space occurs from a higher, colder altitude, resulting in less radiation to space for a given surface temperature. To reduce this radiative imbalance, the surface warms.”
This has to be more retarded than the original claim.
Hi Joe, thanks for geting back to me.
You are right about revaluing all values and breaking the stalemate that allows the Parasites (or Archons as I call them) to keep a tight reign of power.
However, there is a wind of change blowing and people are definitely waking up to the bullshit lies and downright absurdities that are taught in our universities.
I think your videos are excellent. Just keep doing them and keep the momentum going. That is key as I know people expect a regular stream of info these days and audiences are fickle and go elsewhere if you don’t stick to a regular routine.
You always have good reviews when you do a video, so just keep doing what you are doing.
Maybe create an online version of “A Book of Ontology” as you see it and what you’ve learned from Hockney.
Like Introduction. Chapter one – the begiining , Chapter two – the problem Chapter 3 flat earth, Chapter 4 the parasite etc and ultimately it will condense into a series, like a History Channel etc and eventually when you get enough funding as investors will see what the material is and its quality, and will pay you to do a glitzy movie of it all.
But one step at a time and get a plan and outline and be consistent with putting it out. I will help in any way I can, be it ideas, proof reading/viewing, setting an outline etc even funding when required. But I think you first need to just draw up the chapters and then get going.
You have the knowledge and the skill. Its just getting to the grind now. You will of course have detractors but that’s water off a ducks back to you lol, so just get going.
I would try to use your own definitions of Ontology instead of Using Ontological Maths, as the Facebook Iluminists who I referrred to in my orignal post will cry Copyright. Like I said yesterday Maths has its etymology in the word Learning, hence why I refer to it as Ontological Learning. Clif High refers to it as O Physics or Ontological Physics. They cant claim copyright on the word Ontological.
Just something to be aware of. I know we suppport the original Mike Hockney work as fundamental to Ontology and they did want to get the information out there, but critics crying foul of Copyright or Bastardising the Illuminati’s work is unhelpful. Just something to think about, to avoid malicious trolls threatening you.
At the end of the day we ( I would hope) all have the same target in mind to destroy the Parasite Archon and unify the movement. I don’t get all this vindictiveness about whose ideas or stuff it is, or are you allowed to use certain words or phrases that are copyright. Seems counter productive to me. You have always given attribution to the Authors on your videos and in your books, so I don’t personally see the problem.
I personally would delete all your videos you have up till now on all platforms. Keep them obviously for reference as they have valuable ideas and presentations. But make it clear this is a new approach to the Ontology of our Planet.
Reason: Fresh start, New framework, New definitions, state from the start your attributions and influences and your own resources and study; your own work addendum. So there can be no complaints of stealing copyrighted work.
Joe, it’s your project, so it’s up to you. I personally would start with a clean slate and redefine your Ontology. Name it “YOUR Ontology” with research and credit to the Illuminati Authors as influencers and standing on the shoulders of giants etc.
Then do your own thing. And roll ……………..
Hope I’ve helped?
In other news, there appears to be an influx of UFO/Drone sightings worldwide leading to speculation of the long rehearsed Project Bluebeam Event.
Clif High has been particularly vocal, saying his bot predictive programming apparatus is indicating we are in a ” Mellie” . Interestingly the official Q Twitter page is also flooded with sightings and seeming arrival of aliens. Correspondingly both Clif High and Q have purported this Sunday the 15th as a possibe first contact event? …….Who knows!!!!!!!!! Don’t shoot the messenger. Just my resources……
To be clear events are recorded in the eather materium prior to manifesting as a 3d event. Not all manifest but they are real and may only be felt psychically as a mental or physical disturbances or even attacks. AS we live in a narrow bandwith of consciousness we cannot see the etheric or spiritual domains. However events occur there that effect us. For example diseases develop in the etherical plane before becoming a diseae on the physical plane, If we raised our vibration to an etherical level, we would see all the astral and other being and yes including demons that feed on us. However we are light beings from the creator itself who descended into matter (Involution rather than Evoluion) WE shed our spiritual and etherical energetic light bodies and took on an Adam Kadmon physical suit. This was the fall. We though are now ascending back again the other way, THe Age of Aquarius.
One interesting point is as we know matter comes down from spiritual to etheric to physical and that die-ease manifest first as a shcism in the etheric biofield, by raising our vibration closer to the etherical body we can do etherical surgery and remove the dis-ease before it comes manifest in physical reality. This is the truth! A real Soul Camera.
Thats Ontological Learning as a benefit to humanity, and there are many many more that we will discover.
Joe has written in his books about other benefits of a natural energy body diet sustaining foods that work on the energy bodies (soul). Nutrition has been decimated to reduce our natural energy body’s food and sustenance. Resulting in weak mentally deficient humans. Good slave fodder. Water, Air. CO2. all attacked. Crops poisoned with harmful neurotoxins, Soil poisoned with non organic fertiliser, fluoride in water, chemtrails of aluminium supposedly to deflect heat to reduce global warming, and I could go on. ELF’s and 5G frying our brains via mobiles and lamposts. Brainwashing TV . This all fucks up your unseen energy bodies, and that is were diseases starts. So lets cut out the cancer at its root. Gnosis. Kowledge. Ontological Knowledge. Its our Heritage, Its our Destiny.
I think that deserves a song don’t you. Let me know what you think about my taste in music and it can be changed to reflect the consensus. Otherwise here’s to Joe:
And don’t get any weird thoughts there, just thought it was a good song for Joe. Who is a fucking asshole at times. Like us all. But a clever one lol/
Epitaph: King Crimson
Good Night:
@ Z
When searching for cancer fighting natural compounds the most interesting are those that cause apoptosis (natural cancer cell death without damaging healthy cells)
Most promising are certain polyphenols like resveratrol, curcumin. lycopene, egcg, and lupeol
The real magic is in the synergetic effect of combining.
Some combinations improve the uptake like curcumin and piperin from black pepper, or adding olive oil to tomato sauce or soup to improve the uptake of both lycopene and lupeol, or reseratrol found in wine grapes with egcg found in green tea
And some combinations combine to target the different pathways to cause the wanted apoptosis (cancer cell death). See illustrative image
Interesting to note is that all mentioned polyphenols are hydrogen oxides. A simpleton would say it is like water (h2o) but it is not. Even tho water is an hydrogen oxide, these molecules are far more complex and give several food the dark, red, blue, purple, or green color
https://i.ibb.co/cg3xSzP/vrrvvrvrvrvrv.jpg
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3064425/
Besides polyphenols look at the minerals selenium and zinc where zinc needs a zinc ionophore like green tea egcg or quercetin to improve intake. And look for the vitamins, c, d, e, and b2
Wow excellent information DIN. Thanks. You certainly know your nutrition my friend!
There is a whole new science out their for life extension.
I take Trans-Resveratol and Curcumin (Turmeric Extract) Selenium 200ug, Zinc 20-30mg, Green Tea, Quercetin (works like Fisetin) I think it’s an onion extract? Lycopene is the red colour in tomatoes. I take a full spectrum methylated B compound and also a more powerful Thiamine B1 as Benfothiamin 300mg
The combining of supplement to aid absorbtion is good info. I have heard of taking biperine (black Pepper Extract) being used as a uptake increaser before, but not come acrosss the other combinations. Will defintely try those. One other combo is to take any fat with Vitamin d3 (Cholecalciferol) as Vit D3 is a fat soluble vitamin compound so absorption is increased with something like Omega 3 fish oil, or cod liver oil or olive oil.
I imagine the Hydrogen oxide chain molecules (in the Diagram you attached) act as reducing agents i.e ant-oxidising via releasing the Hydrogen molecule much
like in Hydrogen Therapy.
And thanks for the Apoptosis Research Paper. Very interesting indeed:
Apoptosis is a process that removes damaged cells, while senescent cells (SnCs) are cells that have undergone a process that makes them resistant to apoptosis.
So I take Fisetin for removing senescent cells. Here is one company I use:
Do not age : https://donotage.org/products
Just got this from Google AI:
Fisetin can remove senescent cells:
Senolytic activity:
Fisetin is a natural flavonoid that acts as a senolytic, which means it induces cell death in senescent cells. In studies, fisetin has been shown to:
Reduce the number of senescent cells in mice and humans
Reduce senescence markers in multiple tissues
Restore tissue homeostasis
Reduce age-related pathology
Extend lifespan
Improve metabolism and organ health
Reduce the expression of senescence and fibrosis markers
Reduce the levels of SASP factors
Other effects:
Fisetin also has other effects, including:
Inhibiting cell proliferation
Exerting anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, and anti-tumorigenic effects
Mimicking calorie restriction
Cell-type specificity:
The effects of fisetin vary depending on the cell type.
Safety profile:
Fisetin has a known safe profile in humans, and clinical trials are ongoing.
There is evidence that senescent cells can contribute to the development of osteoarthritis (OA):
Senescent cells in joints:
The number of senescent cells in joint tissues increases as OA develops. Transplanted senescent cells can even cause an OA-like condition in mice.
Senescent cells and synovial cells:
Senescent skeletal cells can interact with synovial cells, which may disrupt the balance within the joint and contribute to OA.
Senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP)
SASP is linked to cartilage degradation and OA.
Mitochondrial dysfunction:
Age-related mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress may cause joint tissue cells to become senescent.
Targeting senescent cells could be a promising way to treat OA. Therapeutic drugs called Senolytics and Senomorphics have been developed to eliminate senescent cells.
Here is a PDF by my Mentor of some of the supplemens mentioned above and what they do. Hope you find it useful:
https://files.catbox.moe/377u7g.pdf
p.s I have never heard of egcg, and lupeol before, so am reading up about them now.
@ Z
Interesting info about removing senescent cells. Didn’t know that
Regarding synergetic effect of dietary compounds i was a bit simplistic, sometimes the effect is not by increasing intake but by working together to achieve the apoptosis goal, like in this study
In the present study, in vitro and in vivo antitumor effects of a combination of two natural dietary agents, green tea epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) and resveratrol were investigated. It was revealed that their combination at low doses (at which single agents induce minimal apoptosis) synergistically increased apoptosis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33864659/
Good point DIN. The synergistic effect of certain combinations of dietry supplements is underplayed for sure. Have you read any of Dr. David Sinclair’s books? He is one of the world’s foremost authorities on genetics and lifespan.
His most well known book is called “Lifespan. Why We Age and Why We Don’t Have To” and is excellent.
Thanks for the Research Paper on Green Tea and Resveratol.
@ Z
Will look into the book
Don’t need supplements for lycopene when eating tomato sauce or soup regularly. But do need to add olive oil
In this study the control group ate tomato sauce without olive oil and had after 5 days 4% increase in cell plasma lycopene. And the group who added olive oil had 80% increase. That is a 20 fold increase in lycopene intake compared to not adding olive oil. page 134 shows a diagram with the results
Click to access 131.pdf
Another study shows that it works with olive oil but not with sunflower oil.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891584900004408
Thats very interesting about the sunflower oil DIN. However I am not suprised as the typical Mediterranean Diet which is claimed to be the worlds healthiest use ample Tomatoes and Olive oil.
I visit the Greek Islands a lot and their diet is lots of tomato salads with fresh organic olive oil. Oregano. I love their feta cheese ( Goats milk) as well with a Greek Salad.
Also seed oils are not very good. Try to avoid seed oils if you can. Rapeseed, Canola, Sunflower etc not good. Very inflammatory. Even cold pressed seed oils like linseed (flax) Peanut oils, sesame oils etc are not ideal for humans.. Coconut oil though even though a saturate fat if very healthy. Steer clear from margarines becaise of Trans Fats, Butter is ok. Use high smoke point oils and fats like olive oil in cooking as temperature alters the lipid bonds in an unsavoury way.
All ok in a small amounts obviously, but dont cook with seed oils if you can help it.
Hemp oil also is not as good as CBD oil as a supplement. One is leaf extract and the other is seed extract of the same plant. The Asians like the Indians and Pakistanis here in the UK cook using clarified butter (Ghee) which I find better than seed oils. Saturated fats were demonised by the Powers that be, now butter and coconut oils are proven to be healthy. Go figure!
For your olive oil always get a coldpressed extra virgin olive oil. I prefer the black Kalamata Greek olive for my olive oil, but the standard Greek or Italian or
Spanish Olive oils are just as good so long as they are cold pressed and virgin. It’s just a matter of taste. I love Greek olive oil on tomatoes and Feta cheese with a Greek Crusty Kalamata Olive bread.
https://www.themediterraneandish.com/traditional-greek-salad-recipe/
Here’s the song they always play at Greek Restaurants for tourists as they smash plates everywhere and encourage the diners to join in Lol. It’s called Zorbas dance:
Obviously music has moved on in Greece, but still maintains its authentic heritage:
CD,
Miskolczi wrote a paper on the optical thickness of the atmosphere.
“Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due
to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present
analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ferenc-Miskolczi/publication/268507883_The_Greenhouse_Effect_and_the_Infrared_Radiative_Structure_of_the_Earth%27s_Atmosphere/links/5a1c29d40f7e9be37f9d5b8e/The-Greenhouse-Effect-and-the-Infrared-Radiative-Structure-of-the-Earths-Atmosphere.pdf
CD,
All I can say is oops!
That was the wrong Miskolczi paper.
Here’s the right one:
A study of empirical atmospherical radiosonde data over a period of 61 years from 1948 to 2008 states “The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming”. –Ferenc M. Miskolczi 2010
Click to access E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
Alex,
As Joe has said a slowed cooling atmosphere does not equal increased surface temperatures. It’ the whole misuse of flux.
Joe,
might be overthinking this but well that’s what I do. The core_shell problem.
If we assume the core is a consistent temperature and the space between the shell and the core is a vacuum the shell would have to be in thermal equilibrium as it will be heated from below evenly and assuming conduction is even, the cooling will be consistent.
If we assume air between the core/shell that air would not be in thermal equilibrium each layer of the air could be in equilibrium (LTE) but the space between the core and the shell as a whole would not be in thermal equilibrium. However, we could still assume the shell could be in thermal equilibrium as long as it is consistent in cooling evenly.
Now if the pressure is even between the core and the shell then the air between the core and the shell would be in thermal equilibrium.
So assuming pressure is even and the space is in thermal equilibrium the bottom of the shell facing the core would be in thermal equilibrium with the core. The outer surface could be in thermal equilibrium with itself but would not be in thermal equilibrium with the core-to-inner surface of the outer shell.
Remove the shell and nothing remains in thermal equilibrium.
I might not be able to write out the equations but I can deduce the process.
I think I got that right?
* core-to-shell facing the core
NASA agrees with us.
“Energy from the sun warms the surface, creating updrafts of air that carry warmth and moisture up into the atmosphere.”
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov//30367
CD,
Wouldn’t a slow cooling atmosphere, lower OLR, indicate a colder surface? Or, a faster cooling atmosphere, higher OLR, indicate a warmer surface?
According to Nasif Nahle, CO2 isn’t going to warm anything measurably.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/#
I have found no one to refute his calculations. If you can please let me know.
I recently upgraded to a subscription version of A.I. (do not watch that much TV)
I have been working on something for awhile to dispel the Radiative budget images we always see. Some chap was denigrating my view on energy distribution in the atmosphere and kept explaining I had to disprove mainstream science on the Radiative Budget. In his view that is FACT and the science is built around that. Seriously this is exactly what Joe bangs on about. Hilarious.
I put something together. Sent it off to A.I. It cleaned up my grammar which is shocking. The following is my thoughts. but now it is well presented.
Note I did not get into Flat Earth science they engage in and claiming Lapse rate is a result of CO2 blah blah blah.
Joe is 100% correct I find they just switch off as they have no capacity to contemplate anything else.
Whilst I am happy with my response. I somehow think I will get the same blank stare response. Following is the post. I welcome corrections. PLEASE.
——————————————
It is long winded (but not that long) Image at bottom of post that Climate models are based upon. IPCC energy budget
Many peeps use the Energy Budget model as shown at end of of post) as “proof” that CO₂ is the primary driver of surface warming. Many rely on this framework as if it were an unquestionable foundation of climate science, but here’s the problem:
The Energy Budget model assumes that radiative emissions (back radiation) from CO₂ are what drive near-surface temperature changes.
But here’s the truth: CO₂ does not radiate any meaningful energy in the troposphere.
That’s it. That’s the fundamental flaw.
Yet again, we see a version of “proof” being presented that ignores the dominant energy transfer mechanisms in the troposphere—collisional energy transfer, conduction, convection, and latent heat. The IPCC and other mainstream models are based on a world where these fundamental processes are treated as secondary or, in some cases, ignored altogether.
Where the Radiative Model Fails
The Energy Budget chart often presented as “fact” is actually a radiative model—a theoretical construct that does not accurately represent how energy is distributed in the troposphere.
Here’s why:
CO₂ as a Coolant, Not a Heater
Here’s where mainstream climate science gets it completely backwards:
The Bottom Line
The real mechanism driving tropospheric temperature is not CO₂ radiative forcing, but convective and collisional energy transfer. The energy budget model is radiative-heavy and is incomplete.The scientific reality is this:
That’s the simple fact of it. The “CO2 dominates surface warming” argument crumbles the moment you apply actual atmospheric physics rather than relying on a radiative-only model.
N2 and O2 also absorb and radiate IR, just need a different instrument to detect it. Raman Spectroscopy rather than thermo-electric transducers.
https://www.academia.edu/129449064/Response_to_Judge_Alsup_s_Question_Number_2_Whats_the_Molecular_Reason_that_Co2_is_a_Greenhouse_Gas_Unlike_Oxygen_and_Nitrogen_?email_work_card=title
Joe, I know that you say N2 and O2 absorb weakly.
Kevin Alexanderman says they are quite strong absorbers and emitters in his essay.
“N2 and O2 are the primary gases absorbing and radiating energy, not the so-
called “greenhouse gases”.
Both N2 and O2 absorb and radiate thermal energy in the infrared wavelengths, as all matter does.”
https://www.climatesciencejournal.com/csj-0003/
(The downloaded paper from the above site: https://www.climatesciencejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Invalidity-of-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory-2019.pdf)
Interestingly in this paper, linked to above, the author states that “Both N2 and O2 absorb and radiate thermal energy in the infrared wavelengths, as all matter does.
More work verifying the nature and manner of this radiation is needed.”
He also gets it wrong stating that the formation of carbonic acid is exothermic. It is endothermic. The exothermic process he might be alluding to is the solution of CO2 into water when heat is released as the gas molecules become solvated by water molecules. Why include this basic mistake when the fundamental proposition of greenhouse gas (hesitate to call it) theory is disprovable in much more simple terms.
Unfortunately, the term ” imagination” has been relegated to describing “living in fantasy” rather than an ability to perceive reality by relying on the solid foundation of clarity of thought and thus means that an appeal to use some imagination results invariably in the response of derision that is hard to take for those of us who know that imagination as a faculty is crucial to development of perception. Aristotle is at one end of the spectrum and Plato is at the other (my opinion) and in my experience appeals are being strongly made to go to one or the other. It could be characterised as the division between male and female, left brain and right brain, or left wing/right wing ideology. In my opinion, this particular paper referred to above, is actually a work of sophistry designed to divide. A lot of it is truthful but the portion that is a blatant lie makes the rest easy prey for an attack. This dichotomy was perhaps no better expressed in the “space race” between USA and USSR 60 years ago; a constructed appeal to patriotism of the worst kind. Meanwhile in the “free” USA anyone of black origin was regarded as an inferior being. Science was subverted under the rule of ideology. The lie was concealed under a blanket of perceived truth.
@donaldgisbey
Thanks for taking your time to read that paper and pointing out the author’s error and saving me some embarrassment.
I have forwarded the error to the author and will post his response if I get one.
You’re right that there are easier ways to disprove GHG effect promulgated by the IPCC.
I guess the rule is to always go with the simplest answer. I think Joe said that somewhere. :^)
@donaldgisbey
Thanks for taking your time to read that paper and pointing out the author’s error and saving me some embarrassment.
I have forwarded the error to the author and will post his response if I get one.
You’re right that there are easier ways to disprove GHG effect promulgated by the IPCC.
I guess the rule is to always go with the simplest answer. I think Joe said that somewhere. :^)
@Alex there are powerful peop