The 21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science

Written by Douglas Cotton

Post removed due to author Douglas Cotton’s repeated unlawful harassment, spamming, defamation, fraud and other anti-social activities against multiple victims. 

As posted on WUWT:

Critical mass of Cotton

Yesterday, the climate blogosphere reached critical mass of Cotton. Douglas J. Cotton. And with that critical mass, as such things go, they go boom. Lucia has previously announced why Doug Cotton is banned at her place. Undeterred, and fully advised he has been banned for bad behavior (here at WUWT also), Mr. Cotton continues to use his Cotton Socks™ to sockpuppet his presence throughout the climate blogosphere, and today, Lucia has had enough and has decided to provide Doug his own thread for entertainment purposes called: The Fullness of Time: Doug Cotton Comments Unveiled!

Lest you think this is a problem exclusive to Lucia’s shop, I can advise you that just about every sceptical climate blog has had similar problems with Mr. Cotton posting his own brand of physics under his real and/or list of sockpuppet names and fake emails.

Critical mass of Cotton

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (14)

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]
    You could have just looked up what heat is in Wikipedia or any physics text book. I quote from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#Overview]here[/url] …

    [i]Heat is defined in physics as the transfer of thermal energy across a well-defined boundary around a thermodynamic system.[/i][/quote]

    Doug Kotton,
    That is pretty close. more precise is:
    Heat (flux) is defined in physics as the transfer of “any” energy across a well-defined boundary around a thermodynamic system, that is, or can be, converted to sensible heat, by the receiver of that energy. Transfer by definition is one way only, across your well-defined boundary, i.e. Watts/m^2! If you claim is “something” equall in opposing directions, by definition, there is no “transfer”! This is precisely been demonstrated for any two objects, or surfaces, with a small temperature difference. No spontanious radiative, conductive, convective, capacitive, or inductive, process has ever been detected, any energy without a temperature difference.
    You Doug Kotton are truly accepting the Clown nonsense that all with a temperature and emissivity, must radiate proportional only to some raised power (4) of its own temperature.
    This is a false fantasy! With zero temperature “difference”, there is no “thermal potential” for any energy transfer in any direction.
    You Doug Kotton, are correct, in observing that the “gravitation potential difference”, can and does modify the effects of “a thermal potential difference”.
    You Doug Kotton need only to supply “How dey do dat”! Your current spoutings are so far off the mark, that all of us can only giggle!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]Please see more recent comments on [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review.html]this thread[/url].[/quote]
    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]Please see more recent comments on [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review.html]this thread[/url].[/quote]
    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]Please see more recent comments on [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review.html]this thread[/url].[/quote]
    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]Please see more recent comments on [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review.html]this thread[/url].[/quote]
    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]Please see more recent comments on [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review.html]this thread[/url].[/quote]

    Doug Kotton,
    You promised on this PSI blog, that you wish to no longer communicate on this blog. Why do you continue to promote your insane fantasy here? With no communication, only spouting, you attempt to render the PSI blog as no more than a billboard for your insane fantasy!
    -pat-

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”DougCotton”] 

    [b]Everyone: [/b]

    This thread is about my article above, which is about the “new paradigm” in which it is explained that is not radiative forcing or greenhouse effects determining planetary surface temperatures, but rather the gravity effect.

    [b]So can we keep to the topic please?[/b][/quote]Does gravity effect exist on planets that don’t have an atmosphere (ie. Moon)? If not then why call it “gravity” effect? Why not call it pressure? How is “gravity” effect measured? What mathematical units do you use to measure/quantify it? Can you give us an example? Lastly, can you provide us an example of how using your concept “gravity effect” is, somehow, more useful/valid than using pressure. What experiment (and/or thought experiment) might you suggest to demonstrate your position?

    Checkmate.

  • Avatar

    ewiljan

    |

    Quit with your Uranus,Saturn, Jupiter getting energy from the Sun they are gas giants much like the Sun and have their own nuclear fusion process that determins the actual temperature basis of the profile to be radiated to space at the appropreate temperature for equilibrium. The amount of energy these gas giants receive from the Sun
    does not determine the temperature at any altitude.. Stick with the four inner planets that we know something about, and the Sun. planet, space, equialibrium is important.
    Please do not cloud up your own good argument.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    No, Doug, radiation from a colder object can not slow the rate of radiative cooling of a warmer object. You really need to think over it.

    The assumption that colder objects can supply warmer ones with energy leads to an absurd consequence like endless mutual warming if the warmer object is initially at a stable temperature, and is therefore absurd itself.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Doug, so you said the same thing elsewhere, as far as I understand your reference. Does not make your statement right though.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        Maybe you misunderstand the essence of the calculations, Doug. Heat transfer depends on difference in temperatures, but this does not mean that the alleged radiation/energy supply from cold to warm is subtracted.

        Besides, if cold could supply warm with energy, in case of a warmer body initially at a stable temperature this assumption would lead to an endless mutual warming of two bodies, which is absurd and renders the assumption absurd. You are well educated, I guess, and can make the calculations yourself.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”DougCotton”]… the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law relates to a system. A system in physics is either a single component or a set of [b]interdependent[/b] components. That’s physics! Two way radiation is two systems, not one, because there is no interdependence. Hence the Second Law is not relevant to the combination of the two systems. It has to apply to each system.[/quote]

          Doug, can’t you smell the contradiction? Because, if hot warms cold and cold warms hot back, you have interdependence. So, it is a system “hot + cold” and according to your definition the second law must apply to this system.

          Come on, Doug, come back to reality.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”DougCotton”]The two processes are not interdependent when the second process happens later, as it would, be it milliseconds or years later.[/quote]

            Doug, again, if warm warms cold and cold warms cold back, it is interdependent according to common sense.

            As I said, you contradict yourself.

            And look, now you are talking about “later”. Should now the effect precede the cause so as it was not “later”? :sigh:

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Yes it is interdependent according to you and therefore there is a contradiction in your approach.

            Your cold and hot cause each other interdependently get warmer.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Doug, this is a good example of a vicious circle. You twist the 2nd law and need to drag “interdependency” into it, then you need to twist this term too. Come on, Doug.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”]Doug, this is a good example of a vicious circle. You twist the 2nd law and need to drag “interdependency” into it, then you need to twist this term too. Come on, Doug.[/quote]

            Greg argument are doing all the twisting.
            I am not a fan of Doug, but I must admit he males few mistakes. Your argument is semantis
            only of the meaning of “interdependency”.
            The quantity of thermal radiant energy transfer between surfaces has never been in Joules but in Joules per second or Watts.
            this value can always change from picosecond to picosecond. The calculation of such
            power transfer Requries two isothermal surfaces,two iso-effective emissivities,
            and one iso-solid angle, over that interval of one picosecond. This is all contained in the S-b equation involving two theperatures,
            two effective emissivities and one solid angle. All all iso-things else no prediction
            of energy transfer is possible the S-B equation canot be devided into two equations
            acting in opposition, at different time intervals. Such is a horrorable error in every different version of the physical sciences.
            +

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”DougCotton”]It takes four months to warm the Venus surface by 5 degrees each Venus day. The subsequent cooling takes place four months later. You call these two processes “interdependent”? Hardly. You cannot explain how there would be sufficient radiative flux to provide a net input to the Venus surface continuously for 4 months.

            All heat transfer that depends on the sensible heat of opne object are indeed interdependent At least in some way, independent of delay.
            Heat is energy yo can carry around in an insulated bucke, or pressure vessle. You can get no more out than you put in.

            Besides, it would have to be over 16,100W/m^2 and that is far more than what reaches the TOA on Venus.[/quote]

            This is true only if done by a radiative process. your own paper claims it is not a radiative process. make up your mind!

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”DougCotton”]Ewiljan, you need to learn correct physics terminology. And you need to learn what a “[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System]system[/url]” is in physics.

            Doug,
            You keep diging yourself in deeper and deeper
            just because you refuse to understand that your knowledge, like that of the rest of us, is very limited. This is so sad as you had many good points in your paper. Why do you now consider yourself God with the power to correctly instruct others, who by their own effort learned many things unknown to you. For example you claim:

            [i]”[b]Heat is not a property of a system or body[/b], but instead is always associated with a [b]process[/b] of some kind”[/i] –

            This many times is complete bullshit, for example: A pressure vessel, with sonme gas at a very high pressure. This body has heat,(one form of kenetic energy but not momentum), The heat is determined mainly by P,V. and N, little by T That vessel can move around, change its distance from some center of mass (gravity).
            with no changes the heat energy of that P,V.N.and T.

Comments are closed