SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IS PLAGUED BY WESTERN SELF-LOATHING

Written by David Archibald, breitbart.com

THE ‘TREASON OF THE INTELLECTUALS’

What stops the Earth from looking like Pluto is energy from the Sun. The quantity and type of energy coming from the Sun varies over cycles that range up to 1,500 years long.

David ArchibaldThe cycle we can see with our own eyes, in our own lifetimes, is the sunspot cycle that is normally eleven years long. A decade ago there was a wide range of predictions from the solar physics community about how strong the current cycle, No 24, would be. One list of 45 predictions ranged from a sunspot number of 50 at the low end to 190 at the high end. Strangely, the climate science community at the time had no interest in what the Sun might do.
 
The predictions at the low end were correct. It has become established—for those who are willing to look at the evidence—that climate will very closely follow our colder Sun. Climate is no longer a mystery to us. We can predict forward up to two solar cycles, that is about twenty-two years into the future. When models of solar activity are further refined, we may be able to predict climate forward beyond a hundred years. (Pictured: David Archibald)
 
I was a foot soldier in the solar science trench of the global warming battle. But that battle is only a part of the much larger culture wars. The culture wars are about the division of the spoils of civilisation, about what Abraham Lincoln termed “that same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.”
 
This struggle has been going on for at least as long as human beings have been speaking to each other, possibly for more than fifty thousand years. The forces of darkness are now conducting a fighting retreat in the global warming battle but they have been winning the culture wars, even to the extent of being able to steal from the future. 
 
With the scientific battle over global warming won, the only thing that remained to be done was to shoot the wounded. That could give only so much pleasure, and the larger struggle called. The Arab Spring brought attention to the fact that Egypt imports half its food, and that fact set me off down another line of inquiry, which in turn became a lecture entitled The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Those apocalyptic visions demanded a more temporal form—and thus my just-released book Twilight of Abundance.
 
While it has been an honour to serve on the side of the angels, that service has been tinged with a certain sadness—sadness that so many in the scientific community have been perverted by a self-loathing for Western civilisation, what the French philosopher Julien Benda in 1927 termed “the treason of the intellectuals.” At about the same time as Benda’s book, the German philosopher Oswald Spengler opined that the West was in terminal decline due to civilisation exhaustion.
 
Our civilisation is not suffering from exhaustion so much as a sugar high, literally in the form of the diabetes epidemic and figuratively in the form of issues such as gay marriage. The treason is real enough though. Apart from the severe, solar-driven cooling in train, the next couple of decades will see our civilisation tested by an ever-tightening oil market, crop failures in the grain belts of the mid-latitudes, mass starvation starting in the Middle East and Chinese aggression against its neighbours. It will be a cathartic experience for the survivors. 
 
The path to the broad sunlit uplands of permanent prosperity still lies before us—but to get there we have to choose that path. Nature is kind, and we could seamlessly switch from rocks that burn in chemical furnaces to a metal that burns in nuclear furnaces and maintain civilisation at a level much like the one we experience now in the post-fossil fuel eternity. But for that to happen, civilisation has to slough off the treasonous elites, the corrupted and corrupting scribblers. What lies beyond that is of our own choosing.
————
David Archibald is a Perth-based scientist working in the fields of oil exploration, medical research, climate science and energy. His book, Twilight of Abundance, is out now.
 
Read more at breitbart.com

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (39)

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Of course such experiments have been performed. [/quote]

    Have you a reference?[/quote]

    No response.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”Just for fun let us take apart the reply from #34 ..”[/i]

    Well, go on – anyone who thinks they have a better understanding of thermodynamics than I do.

    It’s about time there was some sensible scientific discussion, though, so I don’t intend to treat any response as “just for fun.”

    [b]The validity of the gravito-thermal effect is a trillion dollar issue.[/b]

    So you could perhaps start with your alternative explanation of the cross-sectional temperature gradient in the force field in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube. If you blame it on pressure, then give very detailed reasoning based on valid physics as to why you suppose that it is low pressure which [b][i]maintains[/i][/b] temperatures far lower than ambient temperature in the vortex tube. Who needs a refrigerator?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Allen Eltor”]It is in fact I will say the HALLMARK of fraud in modern science that possession of degrees is constantly used as a reason, someone believes, the guru of their choice.
    Everyone has seen the entire Magic Gas crowd,
    exclaim freely between each other that BETWEEN EACH OTHER they had NO IDEA WHY CLIMATE WOULDN’T FOLLOW PREDICTION and
    THEY ADMITTED THEY KNEW
    their MEANS to EVEN HOPE TO DO SO were
    FAR below what they needed.
    This was the crystallizing effect, of the Keven Trenberth/Michael Mann/Phil Jomes/James Hansen EMAIL
    where THEY MELTED DOWN: the
    “and it’s a travesty we can’t!” email.[/quote]

    -snip perhaps important stuff see above-

    Allen, I like the way you express your “opinion”.
    I also agree and find no fault with your “opinion”.
    Just for fun let us take apart the reply from #34 Doug (smelly) Cotton 2014-04-26 09:12
    Allen.[/quote]

    Aw shit, did not work! I will try again when my kittycat is not so DRONK!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Allen Eltor”]It is in fact I will say the HALLMARK of fraud in modern science that possession of degrees is constantly used as a reason, someone believes, the guru of their choice.
    Everyone has seen the entire Magic Gas crowd,
    exclaim freely between each other that BETWEEN EACH OTHER they had NO IDEA WHY CLIMATE WOULDN’T FOLLOW PREDICTION and
    THEY ADMITTED THEY KNEW
    their MEANS to EVEN HOPE TO DO SO were
    FAR below what they needed.
    This was the crystallizing effect, of the Keven Trenberth/Michael Mann/Phil Jomes/James Hansen EMAIL
    where THEY MELTED DOWN: the
    “and it’s a travesty we can’t!” email.[/quote]

    -snip perhaps important stuff see above-

    Allen, I like the way you express your “opinion”.
    I also agree and find no fault with your “opinion”.
    Just for fun let us take apart the reply from #34 Doug (smelly) Cotton 2014-04-26 09:12
    Allen.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Allen.[/b]

    (a) The Ideal Gss Law is derived from Kinetic Theory.

    (b) The thermal gradient which represents the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (which must be isentropic with no unbalanced energy potentials) is also derived in just two lines using Kinetic Theory and the isentropic condition that mean (KE+PE)=constant.

    You don’t need to derive the temperature gradient using the Ideal Gas Law, so why do it when it only serves to confuse the issue and seemingly involve pressure that subsequently cancels out?

    Gravity sets the density gradient and the temperature gradient. The pressure gradient follows as a corollary.

    There’s much more on this in my comments under John O’Sullivan’s latest article.

    I’m the first to agree that those who don’t have at least degree level physics, and perhaps 50 years experience in studying and teaching it (such as I have) should not delve into this field. But I don’t do it to make money at ($3 a sale) from a book which has already cost me about $4,000 in production costs and free copies I’ll be posting to key personnel, to say nothing of the opportunity cost of thousands of hours of private study in the field.
    .

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    It is in fact I will say the HALLMARK of fraud in modern science that possession of degrees is constantly used as a reason, someone believes, the guru of their choice.

    Everyone has seen the entire Magic Gas crowd,

    exclaim freely between each other that BETWEEN EACH OTHER they had NO IDEA WHY CLIMATE WOULDN’T FOLLOW PREDICTION
    and
    THEY ADMITTED THEY KNEW
    their MEANS to EVEN HOPE TO DO SO were

    FAR below what they needed.

    This was the crystallizing effect, of the Keven Trenberth/Michael Mann/Phil Jomes/James Hansen EMAIL

    where THEY MELTED DOWN: the

    “and it’s a travesty we can’t!” email.

    YOU KNOW THEY ARE IN ON THE FIX
    WHEN THEY DEMAND YOU REVEAL WHO YOU ARE.

    I just saw Magic Gas Believer MONCKTON declare that

    NOT REVEALING WHO YOU ARE – for instance the climate gate leaker

    MEANS you are a COWARD.

    * * * *
    The people who read through the climate gate emails saw the government employees OBSESSED with FINDING OUT WHO PEOPLE WERE
    so they could be SINGLED OUT and their

    CHARACTER

    ASSASSINATED.

    That is what they were DOING in the TRAVESTY EMAIL:

    PLANNING to DESTROY a REPORTER’S CAREER.

    So if you come to this field and are wondering why all the hyper mouthing

    a lot of it is people who wanted to be authors or thought of as important mathematicians and physicists – Tim Folkerts is one who staked his own credibility on there being a

    Green House Gas Law that sets temperature

    instead of the real, Ideal Gas Law.

    The entire field just crawls with creepy lying socio-psycopaths whose fundamental way of life is simply going around shouting they are very smart to anyone who will cheer lead them on.

    It’s the antithesis of scientific debate to deal with the Magic Gas YaW! crowd be cause even when you’re speaking with someone in Academia,

    they firmly believe there’s got to be some bizarre reason no one can figure out,

    why 100 global climate models

    can’t hit a spread crossing the current trend lines, some cool, some warm,

    for the past – well since Hansen said it was going to be getting catastrophically hotter, so – what’s that – he started his main bullshit story about it, aBOUT 1975 or so,

    his enemies were already mocking his “Global Infrared Warming Model” which opposed the REAL one NASA had founded called the “Global Infrared Cooling Model’

    when he was being considered for head of G.I.S.S. so we have

    Green House Gas Law
    people

    Being wrong since it stopped warming about 1995 to 8. Phil Jones said it stopped warming in ’95, the rest of them say in ’98.
    It’s an entire scam science filled with media hacks and people who don’t work in science, on the internet, simply spamming every lie they can, at whoever they can.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    Actually I said something about the people going around trying to hijack threads being

    trained scientists.

    That also goes hand in hand with the VERY many who went to school but didn’t work in several sciences.

    THAT – actually – being schooled AND having long years working in several fields, was what I was trying vainly to sum up when I said “trained.”

    There’s more to a doctor than three degrees.

    That’s not a trained scientist.

    A trained scientist is one who’s worked multi discipline as well as studied multi discipline,

    and you see this being rammed back by the various pathology buzzards circling any important issue.

    If you’re new to all this one of the things you really do need, is an electronic education because that teaches about instrumentation,

    and you need a lot of chemistry, in several disciplines, so when the various

    Magic Gas Bullshitters come along, you won’t have a hard time flipping over their go-carts.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    The thing about those Connolly men is

    their observations on pervection are UTTERLY, UTTERLY, IRRELEVANT TO ANY GREEN HOUSE GAS DISCUSSION,

    because all the entire WORLD needed to be reminded of was that YOU CALCULATE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE USING THE

    IDEAL
    GAS
    LAW.

    Not James Hansen Magic Gas Law.

    Indeed – it’s one of the beautiful things about their work:

    IT IS PERFECTLY TRANSPARENT TO EVERYONE AS THEY GO THROUGH THE SIMPLE CALCULATIONS

    and then move on into WHAT IF territory.

    There is NO QUESTION
    the calculations they use in making sure the atmosphere’s following Ideal Gas Law

    are right,
    because, THEY’RE THE MOST BASIC OF CALCULATIONS.

    * * *
    I point out to you investigating this, that that,

    is PRECISELY WHAT I HEARD a man who WORKED with HANSEN SAY: that it was PERFECTLY OBVIOUS IMMEDIATELY that

    HANSEN’S
    MODELS
    DON’T WEIGHT ATMOSPHERIC ENERGY
    according to GAS LAW but rather

    ANOTHER WAY: TRACE GAS PROFILE.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    For those of you new to the physics in climate field, there are people who have the agenda of using everyone else’s blog site as a platform to go on, and on,

    about the circular crap they plan to insert beside Green House Gas in it’s failing throes, to get

    BOOK PROCEEDS and maybe BRAND RECOGNITION thereby.

    The problem is, almost none of them are trained scientists, and it’s a very rapid crash of intellectual structure as they start trying to spin standard stuff into magic threads of gold.

    I should point out to you who are reading this that the kind of people who try to derail conversations

    have all got the same thing backing them up: they don’t believe the Ideal Gas Law determines the temperature of the atmosphere,

    when in fact, it does.

    That’s why they SOUND so incredibly obtuse:
    they ARE incredibly obtuse.

    Astronauts and aeronautics designers have been able to do so much in the atmosphere at high speed precisely because the atmosphere responds very simply,

    without regard for the type gas making up any particular volume, or all of it.

    This being somewhat counter intuitive has led various magic physics buzzards to circle around the field depending on the fact

    that the original Magic Gassers destroyed all the respectability in the field and could simply say what they wanted.

    Since respectable atmospheric chemists are nowhere to be found, you find the typical blog buzzards hanging around them trying to prop their credibility.

    The fact is they don’t have any credibility if they’ve been seen trying to claim the atmosphere’s thermal profile is set by anything but Ideal Gas Law.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    It’s exactly what I said, the temperature of a volume of atmospheric gas is calculated according to Ideal Gas Law.

    It was that way when N.A.S.A. calculated the orbits of various craft entering and leaving the atmsophere, it’s that way now.

    There’s a formula for determining the temperature of a a volume of gas, in the atmophere,

    and that formula does not include the quantity of CO2.

    All the mauling of adult conversation by these hacks who have books to sell – Jim McGinn aka claudius denk, the ‘solving tornadoes’ quack,

    the Doug Cotton guy who has also decided the same mathematics that determine gas temperature in the real world don’t, in his –

    they’re the kind of people who are extremely interested in trying to thrust themselves up into the

    ”qualified scientist” realm.

    They’re both hucksters trying to use PSI as a place to shovel their s**** because nobody will visit their own websites,

    because what they say starts meanderiing off from classical physics in gas,

    the same way Magic Gassers do when they start their bombastic ”Sky on Fire” claims.

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]@ #4: Allen, it is simpler than even the Ideal Gas Law. The thermal gradient can be derived from Kinetic Theory in two lines, without introducing pressure.

    My [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] explains what happens far more accurately than do the Connollys. Their pervection is a perversion of physics. For example, that is [i]not[/i] how the energy gets into the surface of Venus. It does so by “heat creep” from a less hot troposphere. It doesn’t need to be a fast process anyway – the Venus surface temperature rises by 5 degrees, but it takes four months of sunlight to do so.

    Look, I admit the Connollys are closer to the mark than the IPCC et al, in that they know non-radiative processes are at play, but they are not close enough, because their assumptions relating to pervection are incorrect. There are no constraints that say molecules only move in one direction after collisions. But there does have to be a collision for kinetic energy to be transferred. The reality is, though, that lots of collisions cause subsequent motion in all 3D directions, not just towards the surface. Surely that makes sense.[/quote]

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”]Your experiment is contrived so you can hide its lack of relevance.[/quote]

    I can still provide the names of living witness to my measurements, what do you have troll![/quote]

    Maybe you could subpoena some Meteorologists. You know, just to stir things up. Then you can make some phone calls, maybe you can get one of them to break ranks.

    Good luck with your endeavor, but I think you’ll find that questions that have no answers have no parents, no sibling, and no known surviving relatives.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]If it uses equations it’s not an experiment, you idiot.[/quote]

    I don;t know whether to laugh or cry. As usual, you completely miss the point.

    From long experience, metrologists (not ‘meteorologist’) know that high-accuracy mass determinations must account for the buoyant force of the air.[/quote]Are you too dimwitted to know the difference between an something being an assumptions and something being known?[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]And of course, the buoyant force of air depends on the density of air.[/quote]The density of air is not causually observable, you mental retard.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]So, experimentally, they have determined[/quote]Show us the experiments you ignorant ass.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] an empirical relationship between humidity and density. Higher humidity = lower density.[/quote]Show us the experiments you ignorant ass.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] Just like they have determined experimentally that higher temperature = lower density.[/quote]Show us the experiments you ignorant ass.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] This work; it gives them the best possible determinations of mass. [/quote]Show us the experiments you ignorant ass.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]

    The “equation” is simply a summary of the empirical, experimental results.[/quote]Show us the experiments you ignorant ass.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] It is NOT some arbitrary, academic ‘guess’. The fact that the empirical equation ALSO happens to agree with theory reinforces its value,[/quote]Show us the experiments you ignorant ass.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] it does not destroy is value! Does that fact that PV = nRT is “an equation” mean it is not supported by experiment”?[/quote]Believers belief. Scientist measure and test.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]If it uses equations it’s not an experiment, you idiot.[/quote]

    I don;t know whether to laugh or cry. As usual, you completely miss the point.

    From long experience, metrologists (not ‘meteorologist’) know that high-accuracy mass determinations must account for the buoyant force of the air. And of course, the buoyant force of air depends on the density of air. So, experimentally, they have determined an empirical relationship between humidity and density. Higher humidity = lower density. Just like they have determined experimentally that higher temperature = lower density. This work; it gives them the best possible determinations of mass.

    The “equation” is simply a summary of the empirical, experimental results. It is NOT some arbitrary, academic ‘guess’. The fact that the empirical equation ALSO happens to agree with theory reinforces its value, it does not destroy is value! Does that fact that PV = nRT is “an equation” mean it is not supported by experiment”?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    (continued)

    But you have to remember that (with cooler temperatures) individual water gas molecules in Earth’s troposphere make up only about 1% to 4% of the air near the surface and less higher up. So the effect won’t be as dramatic as when steam above boiling point (making up most of the content of that steel drum) condenses. I can’t see it creating a tornado, for example, but weather is not my area of expertise or study, so I have nothing more to contribute to the off-topic discussion here.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    I watched an experiment on TV last night in the show “None of the above” in which a large strong steel cylinder (perhaps 3m in diameter, 10m in length) was filled with steam (this taking over two hours) and then, as I predicted it would do) it collapsed as the steam (individual water gas molecules) condensed into water droplets, thus reducing the internal pressure and allowing (unbalanced) atmospheric pressure to crush the steel cylinder – all quite impressive and not predicted by the clots who were watching, because they had no idea of such elementary physics.

    So, sure you will get a similar effect when steam (water vapour = individual water molecules) condenses in the troposphere and it hails or rains. New air will rush in where the water gas molecules condensed. Wow! We have wind! Excuse me!

    I’ll stick to climate discussion, not weather. OK? The content of this thread is getting way off topic.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Pat O.06bar writes @ #15:[/b]

    “You physicists always have a phoney confidence that you got everything figured out. I are not a physicist I are and old retired electrical engineer … ” [sic]

    If you don’t think heat transfer by radiation and thermodynamics belong in the field of physics, then go and get your teeth filled by a physiotherapist.

    Why dabble in areas which I have been able to detect all along that you do not understand, Pat?

    All I have to say is in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url], and you have no idea as to what I explain in that book because you haven’t read it.

    There’s a series of my comments on Roy Spencer’s latest thread [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/american-thinker-publishes-a-stinker/#comment-111536]here[/url] which gives more detail, and these comments are more easily found without all the large type you guys continue to use here cluttering up the thread.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”]Your experiment is contrived so you can hide its lack of relevance.[/quote]

    I can still provide the names of living witness to my measurements, what do you have troll![/quote]Maybe one of them might help you construct a coherent argument.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]the physical[quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]As I have said before “Wad the fuck over”[/quote]

    Here is an even simpler experiment.
    Evacuate a container (perfect vacuum). Put a few drops of water into the container. Add a volume of completely dessicate (no moisture) air, and seal it again. The drops of water should, immediately, begin to evaporate./quote]
    Why ever, without the additional heat of evaporation, 2400 Joules/gram. Where did you get that?

    [quote] If you are right the pressure should increase considerably as the drops evaporate. Right?[/quote]
    Only if you can provide the additional energy!

    [quote]if I am right there will be no (or very little) increase in pressure with evaporation.
    Checkmate.[/quote]

    But you are wrong, go away troll!

    The claims of Jim McGinn like those of Doug Cotton, like those of all Climate Clowns have no basis in the “physical” which all earthlings can observe, if they are interested![/quote]It must be frustrasting that the rules of reality prevent you from providing us a link to your imagination.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”]Your experiment is contrived so you can hide its lack of relevance.[/quote]

    I can still provide the names of living witness to my measurements, what do you have troll!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    the physical[quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]As I have said before “Wad the fuck over”[/quote]

    Here is an even simpler experiment.
    Evacuate a container (perfect vacuum). Put a few drops of water into the container. Add a volume of completely dessicate (no moisture) air, and seal it again. The drops of water should, immediately, begin to evaporate./quote]
    Why ever, without the additional heat of evaporation, 2400 Joules/gram. Where did you get that?

    [quote] If you are right the pressure should increase considerably as the drops evaporate. Right?[/quote]
    Only if you can provide the additional energy!

    [quote]if I am right there will be no (or very little) increase in pressure with evaporation.
    Checkmate.[/quote]

    But you are wrong, go away troll!

    The claims of Jim McGinn like those of Doug Cotton, like those of all Climate Clowns have no basis in the “physical” which all earthlings can observe, if they are interested!

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Such experts use equations for air density that include higher humidity corresponding to lower density. There are even a few papers on the internet where they confirm the equations.[/quote]

    If it uses equations it’s not an experiment, you idiot.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]1) Take a evacuated magnesium cylinder of approximately 22 liters and measure its mass. fill with a linde assayed gas mixture of 78% N2 and 22% O2 by volume until an increase in mass of 280 grams. Measure both pressure and temperature of the steady state relaxed cylinder.
    2) Evacuate the cylinder and refill the same cylinder with a new linde assayed gas mixture of 76% N2, 21% O2 and 3% H2O to the same exact relaxed pressure and temperature. Fill with the filling valve on the bottom, so all liquid
    water precipitant generated as the pressure increases will remain in the filling line not in the cylinder. As long as the temperature of the cylinder and gas mixture remain above the dew point of 3% aqueous vapour at that pressure, The amount of each gas as percentage of volume will remain the same.
    3) Measure the total mass of the newly refilled cylinder at the the exact same volume, temperature, and pressure. Please take note of the approximate six gram lower mass than that gas mixture with no aqueous vapour.

    Jim, your thoughts are important to “some understanding” of the process of condensation of gaseous aqueous vapour to the state of a dense liquid while converting 2400 Joules/gram
    of latent heat of evaporation to sensible heat with absolutely no change of temperature of any mass. As I have said before “Wad the fuck over”[/quote]

    You mistake your own confusion for an argument.

    If you were to actually perform the experiment you suggest here, Pat, it would prove I am right. Fools always pretend to see things they really can’t.

    You physicists always have a phoney confidence that you got everything figured out.

    I are not a physicist I are and old retired electrical engineer that has indeed personally done this accurate measurement 11 times with the help of Linde engineer perfectionists of any gas mixture! We still giggle of the variance of 5 to 7 grams of less mass. “beets the shit out of me” or “wad the fuck over! Where are your measurements of such phenomenon. You claim only fantasy with no measurement of the physical. Go away troll![/quote]
    Your experiment is contrived so you can hide its lack of relevance.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Of course such experiments have been performed. [/quote]

    Have you a reference?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]1) Take a evacuated magnesium cylinder of approximately 22 liters and measure its mass. fill with a linde assayed gas mixture of 78% N2 and 22% O2 by volume until an increase in mass of 280 grams. Measure both pressure and temperature of the steady state relaxed cylinder.
    2) Evacuate the cylinder and refill the same cylinder with a new linde assayed gas mixture of 76% N2, 21% O2 and 3% H2O to the same exact relaxed pressure and temperature. Fill with the filling valve on the bottom, so all liquid
    water precipitant generated as the pressure increases will remain in the filling line not in the cylinder. As long as the temperature of the cylinder and gas mixture remain above the dew point of 3% aqueous vapour at that pressure, The amount of each gas as percentage of volume will remain the same.
    3) Measure the total mass of the newly refilled cylinder at the the exact same volume, temperature, and pressure. Please take note of the approximate six gram lower mass than that gas mixture with no aqueous vapour.

    Jim, your thoughts are important to “some understanding” of the process of condensation of gaseous aqueous vapour to the state of a dense liquid while converting 2400 Joules/gram
    of latent heat of evaporation to sensible heat with absolutely no change of temperature of any mass. As I have said before “Wad the fuck over”[/quote]

    You mistake your own confusion for an argument.

    If you were to actually perform the experiment you suggest here, Pat, it would prove I am right. Fools always pretend to see things they really can’t.

    You physicists always have a phoney confidence that you got everything figured out.

    I are not a physicist I are and old retired electrical engineer that has indeed personally done this accurate measurement 11 times with the help of Linde engineer perfectionists of any gas mixture! We still giggle of the variance of 5 to 7 grams of less mass. “beets the shit out of me” or “wad the fuck over! Where are your measurements of such phenomenon. You claim only fantasy with no measurement of the physical. Go away troll!

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Of course such experiments have been performed. They are performed all the time by people who need to make high-accuracy weight measurements, since the density of air affects the buoyant force on an object, and hence on he measured weight.

    Such experts use equations for air density that include higher humidity corresponding to lower density. There are even a few papers on the internet where they confirm the equations.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]As I have said before “Wad the fuck over”[/quote]

    Here is an even simpler experiment.
    Evacuate a container (perfect vacuum). Put a few drops of water into the container. Add a volume of completely dessicate (no moisture) air, and seal it again. The drops of water should, immediately, begin to evaporate. If you are right the pressure should increase considerably as the drops evaporate. Right?

    If I am right there will be no (or very little) increase in pressure with evaporation.

    Checkmate.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]1) Take a evacuated magnesium cylinder of approximately 22 liters and measure its mass. fill with a linde assayed gas mixture of 78% N2 and 22% O2 by volume until an increase in mass of 280 grams. Measure both pressure and temperature of the steady state relaxed cylinder.
    2) Evacuate the cylinder and refill the same cylinder with a new linde assayed gas mixture of 76% N2, 21% O2 and 3% H2O to the same exact relaxed pressure and temperature. Fill with the filling valve on the bottom, so all liquid
    water precipitant generated as the pressure increases will remain in the filling line not in the cylinder. As long as the temperature of the cylinder and gas mixture remain above the dew point of 3% aqueous vapour at that pressure, The amount of each gas as percentage of volume will remain the same.
    3) Measure the total mass of the newly refilled cylinder at the the exact same volume, temperature, and pressure. Please take note of the approximate six gram lower mass than that gas mixture with no aqueous vapour.

    Jim, your thoughts are important to “some understanding” of the process of condensation of gaseous aqueous vapour to the state of a dense liquid while converting 2400 Joules/gram
    of latent heat of evaporation to sensible heat with absolutely no change of temperature of any mass. As I have said before “Wad the fuck over”[/quote]

    You mistake your own confusion for an argument.

    If you were to actually perform the experiment you suggest here, Pat, it would prove I am right. Fools always pretend to see things they really can’t.

    You physicists always have a phoney confidence that you got everything figured out. You pinhead pretend to see the emporers new clothes. Until I pointed it out you had no clue H2O is a non-Newtonian fluid, you big phoney.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”]
    The Connollys are not defending their thinking, which is understandable since much of what they have to say is, well, indefensible.[/quote]

    The Connollys have a will formed hypothesis,a proposed explanation for a phenomenon,based on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. They need no defense, they invite conformation or falsification of their hypothesis. They acknowledge a competing hypothesis from F. Miscolczi using the same balloon measurements. Both hypotheses demonstrate one definite conclusion.” Increasing atmospheric concentrations can do nothing to increase the temperature of the surface or atmosphere”! There is no need for any thermal electromagnetic radiative flux from the surface of this planet! So much different that the pseudo-scientific fanmtasy posted here by Jim McGinn, and Doug Cotton.

    [quote]I don’t know why you go on and on about the ideal gas law. As the name suggests, the ideal gas law is applicable to ideal gasses. N2 and O2 are ideal gasses.[/quote]

    They definitely are not ideal gasses. Helium is the most close to idea, even it refuses to properly display the J-T effect of throttled expansion at themerature above 50 Kelvin.

    [quote] H2O is not only not an ideal gas it isn’t a gas at all in our atmosphere, it’s a liquid (sometimes a solid, snow). You need to stop exposing your ignorance.[/quote]

    And you Jim need to take your own advice! You falsely claim no gaseous H2O in the earth’s atmosphere!
    1) Take a evacuated magnesium cylinder of approximately 22 liters and measure its mass. fill with a linde assayed gas mixture of 78% N2 and 22% O2 by volume until an increase in mass of 280 grams. Measure both pressure and temperature of the steady state relaxed cylinder.
    2) Evacuate the cylinder and refill the same cylinder with a new linde assayed gas mixture of 76% N2, 21% O2 and 3% H2O to the same exact relaxed pressure and temperature. Fill with the filling valve on the bottom, so all liquid
    water precipitant generated as the pressure increases will remain in the filling line not in the cylinder. As long as the temperature of the cylinder and gas mixture remain above the dew point of 3% aqueous vapour at that pressure, The amount of each gas as percentage of volume will remain the same.
    3) Measure the total mass of the newly refilled cylinder at the the exact same volume, temperature, and pressure. Please take note of the approximate six gram lower mass than that gas mixture with no aqueous vapour.

    Jim, your thoughts are important to “some understanding” of the process of condensation of gaseous aqueous vapour to the state of a dense liquid while converting 2400 Joules/gram
    of latent heat of evaporation to sensible heat with absolutely no change of temperature of any mass. As I have said before “Wad the fuck over”

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Allen Eltor”]
    Go read what Michael and Ronan Connolly say about their business how they got started, think about how much their job is precisely about heating and cooling water through aeration, involving different gas mixes, according to biotic needs in the water,[/quote]

    The Connollys are not defending their thinking, which is understandable since much of what they have to say is, well, indefensible.

    I don’t know why you go on and on about the ideal gas law. As the name suggests, the ideal gas law is applicable to ideal gasses. N2 and O2 are ideal gasses. H2O is not only not an ideal gas it isn’t a gas at all in our atmosphere, it’s a liquid (sometimes a solid, snow). You need to stop exposing your ignorance.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    As far as the physics of radiative transfer and thermodynamics are concerned I look up to no one, thanks, Allen. I am no respecter of credentials – just valid physics. “Pervection” is not valid physics.

    The study of planetary tropospheric temperature gradients and heat transfer needs second or third year university physics – nothing more, but nothing less.

    Douglas Cotton, B.Sc.(physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    I’ve known since I saw Al Gore and Hansen teaching people to start breaking the law the jig was up on that one – and it was gonna be cha-cha-chah, with the ‘change the channel to bully, lie, intimidate, SLAPP sue –

    SLAPP SUITS?

    Look at that disgrace Mann.
    Know who the ”FRIENDS” who were – ?

    The ”his FREINDS,” the

    ”COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS” were?

    Who knew Hansen’s end was fake and didn’t care?

    One of them was MICHAEL MANN.

    gO, FIGuRE.

    The whole thing is a hoax all you have to do to prove it to yourself is find out what sciences
    depend on using Ideal Gas Law

    for caloric content
    in the atmosphere.

    They all do.
    Except one.

    Post
    James
    Hansen

    Michael Mann era

    “Infrared Warming Model”

    Computer programming.

    Now.

    Go read what Michael and Ronan Connolly say about their business
    how they got started,
    think about how much their job is precisely
    about heating and cooling water through aeration,
    involving different gas mixes,
    according to biotic needs in the water,

    and the natural extension
    of the examination
    by a computer programmer
    who got curious
    and just got some text books
    from universites and went through em:

    he was some kind of national championship computer programming wiz, the Ronan Connolly guy, go look at his credentials,

    and compare THOSE
    to the HANSEN/MANN GREEN HOUSE GAS LAW

    clowns.

    The computer programmer,
    who also happened
    to be an accomplished
    working
    scientist,

    and chemistry wiz,

    whose primary background was closely affiliated with

    atmospheric chemistry.

    I’ve never made any bones about despising the whole bunch myself although they never did me out of anything more than the rest of civiization’s pouring 20 years’ research plus, down the bottomless hole of

    grant scammers

    and “Magic Gas Law.”

    Nah, it’s Ideal Gas Law.

    Always was,
    will be when the books mocking the sociopaths who fell for it then lobbied for it, are through being written because it’s such ancient history.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    @ #4: Allen, it is simpler than even the Ideal Gas Law. The thermal gradient can be derived from Kinetic Theory in two lines, without introducing pressure.

    My [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] explains what happens far more accurately than do the Connollys. Their pervection is a perversion of physics. For example, that is [i]not[/i] how the energy gets into the surface of Venus. It does so by “heat creep” from a less hot troposphere. It doesn’t need to be a fast process anyway – the Venus surface temperature rises by 5 degrees, but it takes four months of sunlight to do so.

    Look, I admit the Connollys are closer to the mark than the IPCC et al, in that they know non-radiative processes are at play, but they are not close enough, because their assumptions relating to pervection are incorrect. There are no constraints that say molecules only move in one direction after collisions. But there does have to be a collision for kinetic energy to be transferred. The reality is, though, that lots of collisions cause subsequent motion in all 3D directions, not just towards the surface. Surely that makes sense.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    What Hansen always has been, is an eco-alarmist. He, is the modeler who, again –

    drove a significant proportion of the ’70s aerosols/ice age scare.

    That’s easily enough checked;

    he was really just a massive government scammer until Al Gore did his come back tour after blowing the Presidency race.

    Mann and Hansen were computer scammers and the man who said the stuff above ALSO

    said “Hansen’s models are worthless: they’re junk.” The reporte chimed in a little, here and there but didn’t direct the story except to ask the guy repeatedly, “are you sure of what you’re saying here sir about Dr Hansen?”

    The guy said, “They are comPLETE JUNk, and HANSEN KNOWS IT. His ‘FRIENDS,’ –

    – and the guy seriously inflected the “His FRIENds,” to mean, “THOSE fraudulent bastards,” in his tone –

    “His FRIENDS, in comPUTER MODELinG,” the guy dripping sarcasm at their assertions they were involved in cutting edge research sure to prove accurate,

    “KNOW it TOO. And THEY’RE IN on IT!”

    The guy ALSO said, “And it WILL BE DISCOVERED. There’s NO WAY IT CAN’T.”

    The interview I heard, I believe was taken before, Hansen went in, in ’81.

    My recall of the story is that the radio show I saw was 89. I worked for the guy who asked me if I believed it, in ’89, ’90, and off and on in ’91 but I think it was about six months after I went to work for him so it would be summer/fall whenever I heard the interview for myself.

    The interview I witnessed was not on video, it was audio.
    And, past that, I can’t say; I thought it was in ’89 when my boss asked me if I believed it: but then when I thought about what the host said was the reason

    for the Hansen section of the show, I think now, the lady who was the host, said, “it’s been a COUPLE of years now, since Dr. Hansen testified,”

    so that’s about as accurate as my timeframe of memory about it is.

    I actually used to say all the time, “I remember watching Hansen testifying in ’89 but when originally I said it to draw warmers into even arguing with me; I eventually started putting it in there as a matter of course and said it a lot of times, that way, not really worrying about it much; there’s always a time when you can see in a political debate, reality has far, far fled the scene, and, as per ALL these scam science runs,

    of course the whole thing has proven utterly fruitless.

    “There’s a giant light on in the sky that is just destined to be found,

    to be associated with the amount of CO2 multiplying water in the atmosphere.”

    When Al Gore told his followers that
    and that it didn’t really matter if they started breaking the law to make people ”notice their voice”
    it was right after Liberals worldwide

    had watched Gore lose the election

    and he straight up told people that if they all started breaking the law, there would be nothing “the deniers” could do.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Allen Eltor”]
    Gasses react,basically the same, with only one exception: water.

    And of course water’s the lower atmospheric refrigerant and water isn’t known to obey different mandate due to spectrum, but due to it’s heat capacity: ability to absorb heaps of heat before actually starting to give it back out or, in other words, change temperature and get warmer.

    Water isn’t like that due to some spectral response to particular light but simply due as I said to being able to contain a large amount of energy before starting to dump energy.[/quote]

    Water’s high energy capacity AND it’s high boiling point (well above ambient temperatures) are an implication of Water’s high polarity (on a molecular level) and whether or not, and to what degree, that polarity has been neutralized by hydrogen bonds.

    Water molecules (at ambient temperatures) aggressively seek to becme entangled, denser–and thus neutralizeing the polarity that is the source of their bond strength and surface tension. So, liquid water literally becomes weaker and produces less surface tension the denser it becomes. And vice versa.

    One the molecular level the interaction of H2O molecules with each other is ironic in that the H2O molecule’s polarity is what causes it to aggressively seek out and achieve hydrogen bonds with other H2O molecules the achievement of which neutralizes its polarity.

    Water is really aggressive to become unagressive.

    • Avatar

      Eric

      |

      What a load of uneducated crap. This guy needs to take a chemistry class.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    The thing that makes me bring all this up is my father was a politician and he taught me once a bunch of guys put in the fix, you have to wait till people retire, to do any good.

    So I waited around and I figure I’ve told those warmers a million times how everyone knows they’re lying, here’s some new stuff for those of you fairly new to this.

    There’s two guys named Michael and Ronan Connolly.

    They founded the Ireland National Aquarium and in that business there’s a lot of concern for how much CO2 is in the water, hence the air going into the water yaDA Yada YAda.

    ONE OF THEM’S A COMPUTER PROGRAMMER and JUST FOR KICKS he got books on constructing GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS.

    TO HIS SURPRISE
    not ONE
    modern GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL

    has the ATMOSPHERE OPERATING ACCORDING to

    Ideal Gas Law.

    That is THE LAW that TEMPERATURE of a GAS VOLUME is DETERMINED BY if it is ATMOSPHERIC AIR.

    So you who are new to this need to go read what they say about the atmosphere and COMPARE IT TO YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC AWARENESS of the WORLD AROUND YOU.

    What the CONNOLLYs say about their experiment in measuring compressive amplification of conduction speed through an atmosphere,
    isn’t really important.

    What IS important is that after you read what they say, you go look up the phrases, “The atmosphere obeys Ideal Gas Law.”

    And note that the Ideal Gas Law is basically just PV = nRT

    And, it’s all very straight forward, pressure, volume, t is temp, and R

    R, is what is called, the GAS CONSTANT and it boils down to this:

    on earth if it’s a gas mixture it doesn’t matter much which gases they are because they all,
    react,
    basically the same,
    with only one exception: water.

    And of course water’s the lower atmospheric refrigerant and water isn’t known to obey different mandate due to spectrum, but due to it’s heat capacity: ability to absorb heaps of heat before actually starting to give it back out or, in other words, change temperature and get warmer.

    Water isn’t like that due to some spectral response to particular light but simply due as I said to being able to contain a large amount of energy before starting to dump energy.

    Anyway: that’s you guys’ ammo for this round of war on those scamming bastards, and you all makes sure you ram it down the throat of every Magic Gasser you meet o he’s gonna be ramming it down your kid’s throat:
    “Magic Gais and thim speshul glitterninz! Yew owe me monie fer usin’ fier!”

    The bunch of tick-eating, baboon hicks.

    IDEAL GAS LAW.

    The ACTUAL ATMOSPHERIC THERMAL PROFILE ASSIGNMENT MECHANISM on earth.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    I was around when the hearings were going to go on in 88, in Electronic Engineering school.

    In ’89 I got a job and there was a replay of a man who had worked with him, on an environmental radio show, maybe NPR; where I lived in the Rockies, there were enviro wackos everywhere.

    My boss called me into his office as I mentioned it and he said he’d seen Hansen testify on CSPAN or wherever it was and he wanted to know what I thought about it. He was actually thinking maybe I believed in it but since having to go to work for NASA was one of the several options in communications engineering.

    He kept smiling at me looking down at his desk, like a cat that ate a bird saying, “they say they think they’ll know in a couple of years.”

    Hansen had become known for assassinating and challenging the character of everyone who told people he was lying.

    The man who I heard, give a reporter an earful of scoop on Hansen,

    told the reporter:

    “Hansen’s warming models are based on pure supposition. Supposition the laws of physics changed, which isn’t going to happen.

    “The atmosphere’s temperature is governed by something called the Ideal Gas Law, and it sounds counter intuitive but the proportion of gas in the atmosphere hasn’t got anything to do with it.”

    The reporter actually, verbally, expressed full-on,
    to the show’s host,

    belief,
    the older scientist,
    didn’t know what he was saying: and he spoke to the show’s host, as if he, straight out, believed not one single word, of what the guy said.

    He told the show’s host, “I dunno, doesn’t sound like anything I ever learned in college, maybe – maybe he IS suffering from dementia like Dr. Hansen says.”

    Now I had watched the hearings and I had already seen the piece where the girl reporter, she was a jr reporter as was the guy who interviewed Hansen’s fellow employee – she said, that when she went to talk to people she was surprised about the level of animosity.

    In recounting the experience now I am thinking the interviews that were played on the radio show

    were interviews done when Hansen was nominated for head of G.I.S.S. in ’81.

    I seem to recall the Host of the show and I do think it was NPR – saying before the show, “be reminded, these recordings were made, when Dr. Hansen was being considered to be moved up to be the head of G.I.S.S.”

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    You can be the first to see this Media Release …

    [b]Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide: Groundbreaking New Book Blows the Lid off Greenhouse Warming Theory
    [/b]
    An innovative new climate theory by author Douglas Cotton promises to free mankind from the concern about global warming via carbon dioxide.

    April 18, 2014 – Denver, CO, North Rocks, Australia – A controversial new book disputes conventional wisdom about greenhouse warming. Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All delves into the science of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, offering new theories about their true effects on the global climate. The newly released book by climate scientist Douglas J. Cotton is published by Outskirts Press.

    Climatologists have tried to explain why the Earth’s surface is in fact hotter than the average temperature in the troposphere. It seemed to make sense that the Sun heats the surface which then warms the air, but the Sun’s rays mostly pass through the thin surface layer of the oceans. Nearly all the “heat” in the atmosphere is “trapped,” not in radiating molecules but in non-radiating air molecules (mostly nitrogen and oxygen), which then collide with radiating molecules, transferring energy to those “greenhouse gases” so they can then radiate it away to space.

    The trouble is that the Sun could not actually warm the surfaces of planets to the temperatures we now know exist. For example, there just is not anywhere near enough solar radiation entering the Venus atmosphere to raise the surface temperature by hundreds of degrees. The atmosphere cannot magnify the incoming energy at the top and send more out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface. Yet the surface of Venus does get a few degrees hotter during its four-month-long daytime.

    Herein lies the dilemma which led Cotton to put together his groundbreaking hypothesis: In fact, all greenhouse warming ceased around the turn of the century, and the world is currently enjoying a slight cooling trend, which the author expects to continue for 30 years. While there will probably be another half degree or so of warming after that time, Cotton predicts 500 years of long-term cooling will commence within the next 100 years or so.

    Physicists, who seem not to have been consulted much by climatologists, are now starting to realize that the much-touted “greenhouse effect” is in fact a seriously flawed conjecture. Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All could potentially free the world of all concern that carbon dioxide is causing warming.

    Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All is available online in paperback through Outskirts Press at http://www.outskirtspress.com/bookstore. The book is sold through Amazon and Barnes and Noble for a maximum trade discount in quantities of 10 or more. The book is being aggressively promoted to appropriate markets with a focus on the earth science and meteorology/climatology categories.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”We can predict forward up to two solar cycles, that is about twenty-two years into the future.”[/i]

    Well, maybe more. Here is what I “predicted” in 2011 …

    [i]”From 2003 the effect of El Niño had passed and a slightly declining trend has been observed. This is the net effect of the 60-year cycle starting to decline whilst the 934 year cycle is still rising. By 2014 the decline should be steeper and continue until at least 2027. (This statement was archived 22 August 2011 here)”[/i]

    Maybe we can also predict 30 years of warming between 2028 and 2058, and 500 years of long-term cooling starting in about 100 years from now.

    But, and it’s a big but, unless valid physics is used to show why carbon dioxide has no warming effect at all, no one will get anywhere with overturning the GHE garbage, because they’ll just say it adds to natural cycles.

    There is proof (supported by evidence) as to why it’s not carbon dioxide after all in my [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478729228]book[/url] …

    [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478729228][img]http://savedbythelamb.com/cover-front-small.jpg[/img][/url]

Comments are closed