The Boundary Conditions of a Manufactured Debate

Written by Joseph E Postma

Had this comment on the “about” page:

I wandered onto this blog from a twitter link about Antony Watts. Still somewhat befuddled because I was under the impression he hunted down alarmists, not reinforced them. real or fakeHowever what really felt like coming home (I’m a Physics grad) was the return to first principles with the laws of thermodynamics in that article – which seem to have been ditched in the climate cacophony. A perfect example of this prostitution of science is this classic from (un)skepticalscience.com:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm

It is stunning that they parallel CO2 with a blanket, when anybody with a basic grasp of physics knows that the effect of a blanket, and indeed an actual greenhouse, is to block CONVECTION, which is a major process of cooling.

I still regularly have to reinforce the point that they are thermodynamic LAWS and anything in climate is a THEORY. Most don’t get it, and the BS touted by the likes of the link above are not going to make it easy to get the point across.

My reply (plus some more elaboration):

Well this may sound ridiculous, but you have to consider the scope of what we’re dealing with here. Read my “Religion of Climate Change” series. And watch Star Wars episodes 1 – 3. Seriously. Crazy, I know.

They’re creating a false reality. Outright alarmism is an obviously false reality, to anyone with the slightest sense of reason. Well, just think of the operation and the forces mustered to establish that false reality, promote it, fake it, have people running websites promoting it, having James Hansen promote it, etc. It’s kind of a big deal.

It all rests on the alarmist version of the greenhouse effect (see here for clarification). There is a real greenhouse effect inside a real greenhouse, and then there is the fake “alarming” greenhouse effect of climate pseudoscience, something pretended to be the same or similar to the real thing, but which it is not, and is not real in its own right either.

It all rests on that. So, you put people in place to look like skeptics, but what they’re actually doing is defending the very basis of the alarming theory, the basis of which is fundamental to every single aspect of the religious, political, and financial platform:

  1. Religious: belief in a false reality.
  2. Political: give up rights and freedoms for that false reality.
  3. Financial: Pay (i.e. be enslaved) for the luxury of believing in, and for having your rights and freedoms taken away for, the false reality.

That’s what people like Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Robert G. Brown, Tim Folkerts, Joel Shore, etc etc, are all doing.

To defend the basis of that platform, especially when it is SO EASY(!) to criticize, is ipso-facto to directly defend that platform, no matter what language is being used, no matter what appearances are being made, no matter who you appear to associate yourself with or to be, etc.  This is as simple as 1 + 1 = 2.

It is the existence of the debate itself which allows for the intended control.  People like Watts are there to ensure that the debate, the battle and chaos, does not end.  If it did end, first of all Watts & co. would be out of work.  Second of all, more importantly, their “Sith Lord” would lose power.  The Sith Lord in the Jedi didn’t want any war to end – it was the existence of the war that gave him his power.  Without the war, without the battle, without the debate & chaos, whoever is at the top of it all would lose their power.  The Sith Lord played and created both sides of the war because it was that chaos that gave him his power.

So it is here: the longer this debate continues, the more it LEGITIMIZES it in the eyes of the unwary and uneducated public.  If the debate itself is legitimized, which is what Anthony Watts & co. are all about with their “the question is not whether or not there is warming, the question is how much warming” statement, then this legitimizes the alarm.

Do people not see how that works?  If there was a massively funded group of people who could command large sections of the media, who all created the appearance of a legitimate debate as to whether or not there were unicorns, then this would legitimize the proposition that there are unicorns.  A large number of people would see the television telling them that it is a legitimate debate as to whether or not unicorns exist.  Given the right emotional language, say, you should feel bad if you don’t believe unicorns exist and you should feel good if you do believe they exist, people will naturally begin to believe in the existence of unicorns, without ever having seen one.

We are dealing with very skillful propaganda with the alarming greenhouse effect meme…masterful propaganda and simulacra and hyperreality, the likes of which only a Sith, an “Archon”, would and could create.

But forget about all of the metaphor, it is all just a matter of practicality: some people want to make (lots and lots of) money off of carbon taxes, and it just so happens to be an extremely useful political tool at the same time.  As criticisms naturally arise, new tools are naturally developed to defeat them.  Metaphor is fun to think about but it is just practicality: currency, politics, and control.

The last thing that can happen, in fact, the thing which would defeat them, is if the entire thing was exposed as a fraud, or at least as a dumb mistake if the masses can not accept the concept of intentional fraud.  This is precisely what would happen if it were exposed that their “alarming greenhouse effect” is pure pseudoscientific BS, and this is precisely why the Sith apprentices defend it.

Do you all know how Anthony Watts signs off on his emails and forum comments when he tells people that he’s trash-moderated their comments or replies so that they can not defend themselves against his and his friend’s bullying and blatantly sophist attacks?  This is how he signs them off, after telling people he won’t allow them have a chance to have their say, which note comes after he’s already hooked them into replying or commenting:

“Feel free to be as upset as you wish.”

What kind of a sick **** says that?  This is what I’ve elsewhere labelled as a “disgusting human being”. 

Read more at climateofsophistry.com

Comments (28)

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]GERLICH and Teuchner papers clearly demonstrate there is no thermal radiative flux toward the higher temperature surface. whether spontaneous or forced!
    Jim, I do not know, Your concepts are quite interesting to those here that do not know, and only have “Wad the fuck over”![/quote]

    Imagine the boundary between two bodies of air that are moving in opposite directions from each other. One body of air is dry: all N2 (80%) and O2 (20%). The other body of air also has multimers (cluster/droplets) of H2O, (let’s say 20mers to 60mers).

    What is going to happen to these cluster/droplets along the boundary? More specifically, what happens to these droplets/clusters that are located along this boundary as they are bombarded with sideglancing impacts from N2 and O2 molecules?[/quote]

    You should have gotten this by now, Pat. (Hint: to get the right answer you have to know the molecular basis for H2O being a non-Newtonian fluid.)

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]To the Connolly disciples[/b] I say, firstly see my #13 (with a correction in #14) and read my book.

    The Connollys are wrong on several points. For example, it is not hard to explain what happens regarding temperatures in the stratosphere, as I have in my book. You need to remember that the negative gradient resumes in the mesosphere, so the whole stratosphere is just an energy “hump” where significant solar energy is absorbed mostly by ozone, and this extra energy spills out in both directions, towards the troposphere and the mesosphere.

    If it were true about multimers forming, I would ask: How would this process generate new energy, which is what would be necessary for their subsequent deductions about jet streams etc?

    They are quite wrong about their “pervection” which is a perversion of physics. The thought experiments they suggest all have constraints which imply that all molecular movement is in the direction of their “pervection” but that just does not happen. People need to understand Kinetic Theory and how molecules move in random directions as in the graphic [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory]here[/url].

    In short, unless there is a new supply of absorbed energy which disturbs a previous state of thermodynamic equilibrium, there will be no adiabatic net heat transfer or net molecular movement in a subsequent adiabatic process after that new energy was absorbed.

    So the upward advection in the tropics is a slow adiabatic process in the absence of wind. It is merely a [i]net[/i] upward movement with a few more molecules going upwards than those going downwards. All advection is driven by a new source of energy and the movement is away from that source if there had been a previous state of thermodynamic equilibrium with its inevitable temperature gradient.

    In contrast, weather conditions involving wind, tornadoes etc all require energy input or energy depletion, causing abnormal pressure gradients, be they horizontal, vertical or in between.

    On a global basis, the effect of wind is roughly neutral as far as global climate is concerned. So it is appropriate to consider an “ideal atmosphere” without wind, and that is why I consider all the above discussion from CD and ST to be off topic. As I said, submit your own article(s) to PSI as [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-21st-century-new-paradigm-shift-in-climate-change-science.html]I have[/url] in the past.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    PS

    In case you missed it, the results of my study are way back up thread at #3. It would be more relevant to this thread if you picked up from there.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    What I can tell you about wind is that it can be generated when upward advection in the tropics hits the “ceiling” at the tropopause. It cannot keep rising, and so it is forced out of the tropics. But the volume into which it flows reduces as latitude increases towards the poles, so there is a funnel effect generating wind speed that is far greater than the speed of the original advection.

    Maybe that will help with your article, but that’s all I propose saying off topic.

    The article is about the falsehood of the greenhouse hoax. The fact that water vapour varies between about 1% and 4% of the troposphere near the surface, and that regions with 4% are cooler than those with 1% is quite sufficient evidence to refute the GH conjecture.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    @ #21.

    [i]”A fluid is Newtonian only if the tensors that describe the viscous stress and the strain rate are related by a constant viscosity tensor that does not depend on the stress state and velocity of the flow.”

    ” … water and air, can be assumed to be Newtonian for practical calculations under ordinary conditions.”[/i]

    ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_fluid]source[/url])

    So why should I guess? And what does it have to do with the topic of this thread?

    The cooling effect of water vapour and suspended water droplets on surface temperatures is explained from physics in my book, and supported with a study of 30 years of empirical data from three continents. Its effect on surface temperatures is due to its radiating properties, not whether or not it is a Newtonian fluid.

    If you are talking about “bodies of air” all moving together, then you are talking about wind in its various forms. Weather is not climate, and weather is not what my book is about, nor is it what the article in this thread is about.
    [b]
    Why not write your own article about tornadoes (or whatever you are talking about) and submit it to PSI for publication. Then you can have a thread all to yourself.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Why do you people love to shout with all the big type? Comments have numbers, so all you need do write (without using the “quote” button) is, for example, @#19 at the start of your comment.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”People that think they have it all figured out really make it difficult for those of us that do.”[/i]

    No, I don’t have tornadoes “figured out” but what is in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url] about climate change is supported by a wealth of empirical data and experiments, as those who actually read and study the content realise. The radiative greenhouse warming conjecture is not.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Imagine the boundary between two bodies of air that are moving in opposite directions from each other. One body of air is dry: all N2 (80%) and O2 (20%). The other body of air also has multimers (cluster/droplets) of H2O, (let’s say 20mers to 60mers).

    What is going to happen to these cluster/droplets along the boundary? More specifically, what happens to these droplets/clusters that are located along this boundary as they are bombarded with sideglancing impacts from N2 and O2 molecules?[/quote]Newtonian fluids are those fluids in which shear strain is directly proportional to shear stress in the liquid and vice versa is Non Newtonian fluids.

    What does this mean? It means that Newtonian fluids get weaker under stress. Non-Newtonian fluids do exactly the opposite: they get STRONGER under stress.

    Guess which one water is?

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”][i]”Imagine the boundary between two bodies of air that are moving in opposite directions from each other … “[/i]

    Sounds fascinating, leaving a vacuum in the middle eh? But in calm conditions no “bodies of air” move in any particular direction: molecules move all over the place.

    Oh well, at least you got back on the topic of the thread – about “boundaries” I seem to remember.

    By the way, you can “look inside” now [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JVA13N8]here[/url].

    [img]http://climate-change-theory.com/cover-front-small.jpg[/img][/quote]People that think they have it all figured out really make it difficult for those of us that do.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [i]”Imagine the boundary between two bodies of air that are moving in opposite directions from each other … “[/i]

    Sounds fascinating, leaving a vacuum in the middle eh? But in calm conditions no “bodies of air” move in any particular direction: molecules move all over the place.

    Oh well, at least you got back on the topic of the thread – about “boundaries” I seem to remember.

    By the way, you can “look inside” now [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JVA13N8]here[/url].

    [img]http://climate-change-theory.com/cover-front-small.jpg[/img]

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]GERLICH and Teuchner papers clearly demonstrate there is no thermal radiative flux toward the higher temperature surface. whether spontaneous or forced!
    Jim, I do not know, Your concepts are quite interesting to those here that do not know, and only have “Wad the fuck over”![/quote]

    Imagine the boundary between two bodies of air that are moving in opposite directions from each other. One body of air is dry: all N2 (80%) and O2 (20%). The other body of air also has multimers (cluster/droplets) of H2O, (let’s say 20mers to 60mers).

    What is going to happen to these cluster/droplets along the boundary? More specifically, what happens to these droplets/clusters that are located along this boundary as they are bombarded with sideglancing impacts from N2 and O2 molecules?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    GERLICH and Teuchner papers clearly demonstrate there is no thermal radiative flux toward the higher temperature surface. whether spontaneous or forced!
    Jim, I do not know, Your concepts are quite interesting to those here that do not know, and only have “Wad the fuck over”!

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]I agree. Please show any physical evidence of your fantasy![/quote] My attention is on finding physical evidence that dispute/refutes it.

    No luck so far.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Jim,
    Please state the definition of your “concept that we all know”. [/quote]Dictionary.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]The Connollys propose an atmospheric energy transfer with higher efficacy than conduction, convection, and radiation, somewhere in the range of sound propagation in a compressible medium (thunder),momentum transfer at the speed of sound in an incompressible medium, steel, (newtons cradle), to the speed of electromechanical energy through a conductor, ionized air, surrounded by an insulator, un-ionized air, a coaxial waveguide. That energy transfer, commonly called “lightening” and its corollary “thunder”.[/quote]

    was referring to kinetic energy. (ie. hydraulics) I don’t know why you assume lightning. I think that is your own creative interpretation. [quote name=”Pat Obar”]The Connollys also propose a phase change in the stratosphere dimers,and trimers of O2 and N2, which are so dear to your heart,[/quote]
     
    I want nothing to do with O2 and N2 Multimers. [quote name=”Pat Obar”] of polymeric H20 in your troposphere.[/quote]

    Would you care to take a guess at the type or manner of agitation that is necessary for polymeric H2O? Take a shot at it. If you understand the nature of the hydrogen bond and the geometry of the H2O molecule (and collective implications thereof) then you will realize that there is only one form of agitation that will suffice.[/quote]

    I agree. Please show any physical evidence of your fantasy!

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Sorry – second paragraph above should read …

    The [b][i]density[/i][/b] gradient and (simultaneously) the temperature gradient form autonomously at the molecular level without any need for a hot surface.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Yes I do agree that the Connollys’ “pervection” is nothing more that what happens when you use a hand pump to blow up a car tyre. Wind is not convection, but of course it does transfer energy. So what? Molecules in calm conditions, however, follow random paths, not paths constrained by narrow tubes. Nor do they on a macro scale violate the Second Law.

    The thermal gradient and (simultaneously) the temperature gradient form autonomously at the molecular level without any need for a hot surface.

    They do so because the Second Law of Thermodynamics says thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve with maximum attainable entropy.

    None of this has anything to do with pressure, other than that pressure is a corollary because it is proportional to the product of density and temperature.

    Consider a horizontal, insulated and sealed cylinder of air. Turn it to a vertical position and some net downward movement of molecules results. Hence there is a redistribution of kinetic energy (temperature) and density due to gravity. Why does anyone find this so hard to visualise? The same thing happens in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube.

    Back in the 19th century the physicist who was first to estimate the size of air molecules also thought about what would happen to these molecules in a gravitational field. His “gravito-thermal effect” has never been successfully refuted, but it has been forgotten and overlooked by climatologists. You can read about the subsequent deductions that can then be made in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url].

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Jim,
    Please state the definition of your “concept that we all know”. [/quote]Dictionary.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]The Connollys propose an atmospheric energy transfer with higher efficacy than conduction, convection, and radiation, somewhere in the range of sound propagation in a compressible medium (thunder),momentum transfer at the speed of sound in an incompressible medium, steel, (newtons cradle), to the speed of electromechanical energy through a conductor, ionized air, surrounded by an insulator, un-ionized air, a coaxial waveguide. That energy transfer, commonly called “lightening” and its corollary “thunder”.[/quote]I was referring to kinetic energy. (ie. hydraulics) I don’t know why you assume lightning. I think that is your own creative interpretation. [quote name=”Pat Obar”]The Connollys also propose a phase change in the stratosphere dimers,and trimers of O2 and N2, which are so dear to your heart,[/quote]I want nothing to do with O2 and N2 Multimers. [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    of polymeric H20 in your troposphere.[/quote]
    Would you care to take a guess at the type or manner of agitation that is necessary for polymeric H2O? Take a shot at it. If you understand the nature of the hydrogen bond and the geometry of the H2O molecule (and collective implications thereof) then you will realize that there is only one form of agitation that will suffice.

    If you guess it correctly I will tell you.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Allen Eltor”]The fact PSI has ignored the stunning realization that the Connollys are right [/quote]

    Pervection is (literally) another word for leverage. If one substitutes the word “leverage” for all their instances of “pervection” one experiences no loss in meaning. It’s just a different set of letters representing a concept that we all know.[/quote]
    Jim,
    Please state the definition of your “concept that we all know”.
    The Connollys propose an atmospheric energy transfer with higher efficacy than conduction, convection, and radiation, somewhere in the range of sound propagation in a compressible medium (thunder),momentum transfer at the speed of sound in an incompressible medium, steel, (newtons cradle), to the speed of electromechanical energy through a conductor, ionized air, surrounded by an insulator, un-ionized air, a coaxial waveguide. That energy transfer, commonly called “lightening” and its corollary “thunder”.
    The Connollys also propose a phase change in the stratosphere dimers,and trimers of O2 and N2, which are so dear to your heart, of polymeric H20 in your troposphere.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Allen Eltor”]The fact PSI has ignored the stunning realization that the Connollys are right [/quote]

    Pervection is (literally) another word for leverage. If one substitutes the word “leverage” for all their instances of “pervection” one experiences no loss in meaning. It’s just a different set of letters representing a concept that we all know.

    This is something that happens in science all the time. People fool themselves into believing they’ve discovered something new when in actuallity all they’ve done is apply a new arrangement of letters to a concept that is already know. We can see Doug Cotton making the same conceptual error in his absurd assertion that his gravito-thermal effect represents something new or unknown when, in actuality, all he’s done is rediscover the concept of pressure.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Connelly’s “pervection” is nothing more nor less than what physicists call “forced convection” which you could even have read about in Wikipedia here. Have you ever pumped up a car tyre?

    “Convection can be qualified in terms of being natural, forced, gravitational, granular, or thermomagnetic. “

    You need to understand that the state of maximum entropy (as will be approached according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics) is one of both hydrostatic equilibrium and thermodynamic equilibrium. Hence it is also mechanical equilibrium in which the so-called “pressure force” balances the gravitational force.

    Gravity acts on the mass of molecules and forms a density gradient and a temperature gradient simultaneously as entropy increases. The pressure gradient is merely a corollary, because pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature.

    Thermodynamic equilibrium is the state with no unbalanced energy potentials, and so it is isentropic and thus must have a temperature (kinetic energy) gradient offsetting the obvious gradient in gravitational potential energy. However, the final state of thermodynamic equilibrium must also be one of radiative equilibrium. That is why inter-molecular radiation reduces the magnitude of the gradient in a planet’s troposphere, as we know happens due to water vapour.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Pretty good commentary Allen.

    Better if you referred to the gravito-thermal effect rather than the Ideal Gas Law. I say that because the thermal gradient, which is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, can be derived direct from Kinetic Theory (as in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]book[/url]) rather than using the Ideal Gas Law. The latter roundabout derivation gives the impression that pressure is involved, whereas in fact it cancels out, as can be seen in the derivation of so-called dry adiabatic lapse rate [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate#Dry_adiabatic_lapse_rate]here[/url].

    This may seem pedantic, but it is of vital importance in understanding that the state is one of maximum entropy. PSI people did not want to hear about the latter, so I’m no longer with them.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    Blah – like all aging physicist/mathematician/Type As I love to rant.

    In this case I ranted until told by my wife, stfu and eat. That done,

    I return, to find I never hit Enter last round of rant; therefore never ever
    not once
    to let a good long rant go to waste, here’s the rest of what I was gonna say blogform: or abbreviated.

    And Alan Siddons, Tim Ball, John Sullivan, etc.

    It’s still a dead in the water organization because there’s zero active recruitment of people who are mass media knowledgeable, and who can manage dealing with inflexible seeming physics types.

    For the simple lack of gumption to recruit media people, PSI has taken complete destruction by Watts, JoAnne Nova and Judith Curry, Spencer, etc, who are every one magic goofy gassers who never heard
    of the atmosphere’s thermal profile

    actually being governed by Ideal Gas Law.

    PSI seeing this stunning revelation dug back out, sits around doing not one effing thing about spreading the CONNOLLYS’ message FAR, and WIDE: by EVERY ABOVE BOARD
    and GUERRILLA BLOGGING TACTIC
    known to man.

    Every climate blogger should be actively encouraged to put the COONNOLLYS’ entire atmospheric introduction page up in a
    STREAMLINED FORM

    SHOWING WHERE THEY DID THE STANDARD CALCULATIONS REAL ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTS DO

    and found NOT ONE MODERN MODEL FOLLOWS THOSE CALCULATIONS in SETTING THERMAL PROFILE.

    Oh well anyway, good article Joseph and as usual,

    kids: REMEMBER: only YOU can spit in Magic Gas Believing Hillbillies’ faces.

    If you don’t they’re gonna have YOUR kid answering questions on tests

    involving the immersion of solid objects like earth
    being lit by fire from things like the sun
    into frigid nitrogen/oxygen coolant baths refrigerated by water, like the atmosphere,

    getting warmer from it than when there WAS no frigid nitrogen bath refrigerated by water blocking 30% of the incoming light hitting surface sensors in the first place.

    Hell they have kids claiming they think that’s how the atmosphere works, now in theory.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    What it also is, is PSI doing absolutely zero toward actively recruiting people who are savvy media facilitators so the message coming out of PSI looks like something other than autistics rocking in a corner, surprised bullies took their calculator and threw it on the floor and broke it.

    That’s excepting Joe Postma personally who I know for a fact isn’t scared to lay into Magic Gassers.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    The fact PSI has ignored the stunning realization that the Connollys are right is a very bad sign for them having been around all this time yet not able to spot meme-destroying evidence showing, clearly, that no one in any field of gas mechanics, uses anything but Ideal Gas Law in determining the temperature of a volume of the earth’s atmosphere.

    I’ve seen them go from almost useless to effectively dead in the water,

    while as I write this, Anthony Watts is setting up his “organization to represent all skeptics” and “educate about what skepticism really is.”

    What it is,

    is Anthony Watts systematically banning people for reminding him, WackyWillis and the entire “It’s too confusing for me to know so you can’t talk” crew there,

    that the only thing they can predict is that they will be humiliated in public for teaching that Hansen Fraud, as science.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    Look around at the media involved with Green House Gas Hypothesis.

    Anthony Watts is a failed electrical engineering student.

    He’s still never heard of the Ideal Gas Law which actually determines the temperature profile of the atmosphere.

    James Hansen’s fellow employees despised him for his Infrared Warming Models, because they knew and do now – they know, the atmosphere has always been and always will have it’s profile calculated using the Ideal Gas Law, and it’s the main reason that group The Right Climate Stuff put out those two separate statements denouncing James Hansen as an embarrassment to N.A.S.A. employees who retired from there, and who actually invented, computer calculation of the atmosphere’s various chemical profiles, for orbit and high altitude flight.

    All you reading this should go through their entire, ”introduction to climate” on the site by Michael and Ronan Connolly.

    Joseph you should work with them to do an even MORE streamlined version of their “introduction” where they explain about how the atmosphere’s heat profile is calculated using Ideal Gas Law,

    and PSI should start expressly spreading the revival of the method of simply ordering the Radiosonde Data

    and doing and showing, the calculations which prove every word they, the Connollys say.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Roy Spencer had no answer:[/b]

    Read the comments from [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/enso-sst-ceres-forcing-and-feedback-the-travesty-continues/#comment-110554]here[/url].

    What would be your answer – Joe or anyone?

    What’s the point of doing half the job and just rubbishing the AGW conjecture without presenting a hypothesis that explains all observations? Why am I the only one doing so? Why does PSI ignore the need?

    Water vapour cools as shown below. Does this not need a comprehensive explanation based on the laws of physics, such as I have presented?

    [img]http://climate-change-theory.com/study-graphic.jpg[/img]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    You wrote: [i]”I still regularly have to reinforce the point that they are thermodynamic LAWS and anything in climate is a THEORY.”[/i]

    But, even [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis]Wikipedia[/url] would disagree …

    [i]”Even though the words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.”[/i]

    AGW is nothing but school boy level guesswork.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    You wouldn’t trash people’s comments yourself, would you? Good – so this one will stick won’t it?

    But why do you call AGW a “theory” as if it’s been well established. I mean, I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to call mine anything but a hypothesis. Laws and theories have far greater standing in physics than what starts out as a hypothesis. “Conjecture” might be what AGW is at best.

    For example, in my [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478729228]book[/url] I write …

    [i]”… the book puts forward a universal [b]hypothesis[/b] as to the processes which are considered to be determining all planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures, and even sub-surface temperatures right down to the core.”
    [/i]
    [i]
    “The [b]hypothesis[/b] in this book is supported by all known and estimated temperature data throughout our Solar System, whereas the greenhouse conjecture is demolished from various angles and never has been successfully applied to explain any other planetary temperature data.”[/i]

    [i]”The physics involved is actually at the forefront of current knowledge, and the [b]hypothesis[/b] put forward in this book has not, to the author’s knowledge, been published anywhere else in world literature. Yet the IPCC authors make their “greenhouse effect” sound all too obvious, and even young school children are taught in simplistic terms by misled teachers that this wicked “pollutant” carbon dioxide acts like a blanket making the world a hotter place. It is incorrectly accused of allowing all incoming radiation from the Sun to strike the Earth’s surface, but “trapping” all upwelling long-wave infrared radiation. Then it is assumed that, when you warm up some very cold molecules of air in the atmosphere by a fraction of a degree, that extra energy somehow returns to Earth and makes it hotter, like hot air physically trapped in a glass greenhouse.”[/i]

Comments are closed