What is the theory of man made global warming?

Written by Derek Alker, PSI Climate Analyst

What is the theory of man-made global warming? The short answer to that seemingly simple question is that it is a scam. The biggest, most complex, and most successful, deliberate scam so far in human history. burning earth

The take home messages that will be explained are – 

1) The difference between a physical law (which is merely a prediction) and a law of thermodynamics (which is a material fact).
– A so called physical law is a simple and elegant, but unphysically calculated prediction. THAT is not a law at all.

Such “physical laws”, ie, P/4, Black Body, Stefan Boltzman and Wien’s law, are merely predictions, whilst the Laws of thermodynamics actually ARE laws that always apply, and thus can be stated as simple facts. ie, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is the fact that colder (or the same) can not heat (the same or) warmer.

2) In reality energy can not be created, therefore in reality there CAN NOT be a greenhouse effect or “theory”.
– The GH “theory” in any of the versions, or interpretations currently in use (heat flow, energy flow, or fluxes), HAS TO create energy for there to be a “working in reality theory” in the first place. Which invalidates the “theory”.

3) Climate science has to start any explanation of how earth’s climate system works from a physical basis.
– Climate science will have to (in the end) move from the current unphysical basis, based upon “physical laws” to a physical basis based upon and in accord with the known laws (of thermodynamics) and properties of physical matter (such as heat capacity), from which to study earth’s climate system from.

Predictions of the result are not explanations of how the result was achieved. 

An introduction to the presentation

The old saying that “The complicated webs we weave when we try to deceive” is appropriate, in that, for many hearing that AGW is a scam is simply not enough for them to accept it is “just” a scam. With that in mind the presentation is intended to explain, as simply as possible, step by step, and point by point, how the (politically correct, politically funded, and for political purposes) scam is a (pseudo science) scam. Hopefully virtually anyone taking the time to read through the presentation will understand that AGW is, and know how AGW is a pseudo science scam.

Although many people know that AGW, Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (man made climate change, climate change, climate chaos, climate disruption, whatever it is being called this week, or by some other different name next week), is a scam, that understanding only begins to hint at the scale of the (global) deception.

We see downright deliberate (pseudo science) lies, being knowingly forced upon us (by politicians and bureaucrats mostly via the main stream media [MSM] outlets, and by many others with vested interests in the scam too.

This extends to those in education and government funded “scientists”, companies with so called “green” products, etc, etc, etc.). The why, by whom, and with what purpose in mind is the scam being used for, the attached presentation will not go into in any great depth.

The belief in AGW is to all intents and purposes a cancer that has infected almost all of human society. “Save the planet” is the feel good mantra with which the scam has been sold to us, without it being stated that to “save the planet” (from a, as hypothesized, none existent problem) “we” will have to pay the price of a one world government (via the United Nations Agenda 21).

Whether that is just another lunatic “conspiracy theory” the reader can decide for themselves. The presentation will examine in some detail the “theory” that AGW fears are based upon, and how that “theory” has been presented to us. 

Like most people I first became aware of AGW fears in the early 1990s via the MSM. I entered into various discussions, on various blogs and forums on the subject (very naively and innocently as a geographer), that being my educational background, or rather specialty.

It soon became apparent to me that the problem of earth’s climate system had been “resolved” with the use of maths and physics, which as a geographer I would have to learn to a far greater depth than I had done, or had needed to do previously. It may be that my “new eyes” to the physics and maths used to “resolve” the problem of what is earth’s climate system doing, how does it work, lead me to a very different understanding of how the system works overall.

I realised quite quickly that something was seriously, and very seriously amiss with the whole of the accepted science referred to as “climatology”, but what? That puzzled me for many years. Is the paradigm the science of “climatology” is using wrong? Surely not!

Alan Siddons in about 2007 noticed a pdf I had written in regards of my concerns and criticisms of the Global Energy Budgets. He then contacted me and invited me into a group that discussed these issues and others by email. It soon became apparent to me that this group where discussing what they considered to be a fact that there is no greenhouse effect! It is simply not possible, the “theory” itself is unphysical. Alan referred to what he called “greenhouse land physics”!

I was way, way out of my depth, and I knew it. BUT, “climatology” perplexed me, I wanted to understand better. Over the course of several years, and many, many hundreds if not thousands of emails I begun to understand better. 

What did I learn mostly from my involvement with the Slayers group, as that group Alan had invited me into had become known as? The very same group that John O’Sullivan later used as the impetus to form Principia Scientific International from. Very basic physics mostly, is the rather surprising answer. It was an amazing journey of discovery for this geographer, in the company of Alan Siddons, Hans Schreuder, Nasif Nahle, Joseph Postma, Oliver Manuel, Martin Hertzberg, to name just some of the Slayers involved in those amazing email discussions. 

BUT, something was missing. The Slayers and their very basic criticisms (because of the Laws of thermodynamics, particularly the 2nd Law of thermodynamics) of Greenhouse effect “theory” were ignored, dismissed, and ostracized.

What is the “something” that helps to explain where the “greenhouse land physics” had come from?

How could so many have been taken in by such a simple scam?

What is the basis that the false paradigm of the current accepted (modeled) science of “climatology” is built upon?

Although because of my involvement with the Slayers I knew there is no greenhouse effect, how to explain current “climatology” is using a false paradigm and is therefore a pseudo science, a science that looks like a science but it is NOT a science, it is imaginary? The “something” has so far eluded me, and many others. 

Remembering I entered into the subject area as a geographer, who then realised he had to brush up on his basic physics knowledge I took particular attention to a facebook post linking to a series of lectures given by one of America’s most famous and respected physicists, Professor Richard Feynman, back in 1964.

I did not worry that the lectures were so old. They were as good a place as any to “revise”, to go over afresh my physics knowledge, mostly gained from the Slayers, and in particular from Alan Siddons, Nasif Nahle, and Joseph Postma. I started with the best of intentions, I was going to listen to the series of lectures, to see what I could glean from them. 

So far I have not got past Feynman’s first lecture, and in particular the first 15 or so minutes of the first lecture. 

In those first few minutes Professor Feynman explained something. I would suggest it is the “something” that has been missing so far in the discussions of the currently accepted pseudo science usually referred to as “climatology”. What he said is the motivation that, for my own peace of mind, meant I had to produce the presentation. It is in short the basis, the logical foundation, of the presentation. 

He said:
I am more interested in the marvel of nature who can obey such a simple and elegant law…and how clever she is to pay attention to it.
Richard Feynman 1964.

I think it very deliberate that Professor Feynman chose the Law of Gravity as his first lecture, and that before he explained that, he first explained the character of physical laws. No one knows what gravity is, other than it is a force.

A force of attraction, yes, but how? By what? We simply do not know.

This is THE POINT he was making, we can predict, using an unphysical calculation that which we do not understand HOW it is done. We, have worked out a simple and elegant calculation, using unphysical assumptions that seems to accurately predict what happens in nature, what happens in actual thermodynamic reality (ATR), BUT we do not understand the HOW. The “physical law” is NOT a law, it is “merely” a prediction of the answer nature must reach by physical means in ATR. 

I am not sure why so many seem to have missed what Professor Feynman was saying. It is very basic physics, that all physics should be done in the knowledge of and having taken into account. Physical laws are not laws at all, they are merely unphysically calculated predictions.

The Laws of thermodynamics however are Laws, statements of fact, that always apply in ATR. Professor Feynman, to my understanding, was also saying that reality, ATR, is so complex, so interrelated, so dynamic, “we” will probably never be able to explain it in all it’s physical processes and relationships. That, certainly would seem to be true of earth’s climate system. 

I shall try to put it another way, using an analogy, that may help others also understand what, I think, he was trying to communicate. 

The Pie Making Machine Operative analogy.

An operator in a pie making factory works at a machine. He or she knows that they have to supply the raw materials at the appropriate rate for the machine to run properly. The amount of dough for the pie bases, and the amount of dough for the pie lids, and the type and amount of filling for the pies (once the pies are made they are passed onto another operative, for baking).

The operative could simply calculate that in an hour, given the required amounts of dough and pie filling the number of pies the machine will make. He or she could, with a simple and elegant calculation predict the number of pies made over a given period of time. 

Does this mean the operative knows HOW the machine works? No. 

A “physical law” is the simple and elegant unphysical calculation, such as the operative used, but the machine produces the predicted result physically (in accordance with the Laws of thermodynamics), using those raw inputs. HOW the machine does this is very very involved, complex, and beyond the comprehension of the simple and elegant calculation the operative used to predict what the machine would produce with. 

Why is this so important? AGW is how we are supposed to be affecting the (supposed) greenhouse effect. The Greenhouse effect “theory” is a black body, and therefore Stefan Boltzman Law, or rather equation, and Wien’s Law too based (supposed) explanation of ATR. Black body, the Stefan Boltzman law, and Wien’s laws are physical laws, they are NOT the Laws of thermodynamics. 

How can a combination, however clever, of unphysically calculated, simple and elegant mere predictions (physical laws) explain ATR? It, they, can not. THAT is why, at the most basic physical level greenhouse effect “theory” fails in ATR.

It simply can not explain ATR, BECAUSE it is a combination of physical laws and therefore it is an unphysical “theory”. Which is, in any real sense whatsoever, no theory at all. Simply, there is not, there never has been, and there never could be a unphysical greenhouse effect, or “theory”, as the current pseudo science of “climatology” is based upon. 

It will probably be obvious to most casual observers that the scam that is AGW is so big, so all encompassing, that so many are utterly dependent upon, “they” will not, and actually can not, admit it is wrong, it is false, and it is a deliberate lie.

So, it has to be explained as simply as possible, in a way most can understand, how such a massive scam was constructed and presented to us. That is no easy task. I doubt this presentation will manage to make more than a few understand better, but it has to be attempted. 

The presentation is not complete, and probably never will be. But, I hope it is simple enough and clear enough for some to understand better a subject that is incredibly complicated, interrelated, and dynamic, namely earth’s climate system, and the current “explanation” which is also a incredibly complicated, interrelated, and dynamic deliberately constructed set of unphysical lies with which to scam us.

If just a few realise climate science has to move on from its current unphysical basis:

alker fig 1

To an actual physical basis, I would suggest the following:

alker fig 2

Then, in the end, because in the end, the truth WILL out, so much the better for all. 

I have attached the presentation to this post as a pdf, although it is probably better viewed as a Microsoft Powerpoint presentation, or as a MS pp slideshow, that are also attached. 

Below is a link to the first slide in a public Photobucket folder which has the presentation as a series of jpegs, that can also be viewed as a slideshow.
http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh…sort=4&o=0

Relevant Files:

Introduction_to_V8_pp_What_is_AGW_theory_Derek_Alker.pdf (Size: 204.54 KB / Downloads: 5) 

V8_What_is_man_made_global_warming_theory_pdf_Derek_Alker.pdf (Size: 1.77 MB / Downloads: 4) 

V8_What_is_man_made_global_warming_theory_Derek_Alker.pptx (Size: 1.69 MB / Downloads: 5) 

V8_What_is_man_made_global_warming_theory_Derek_Alker.ppsx (Size: 1.69 MB / Downloads: 6)

Comments (252)

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    I think a point has to be made in regards of Dr Miskolczi. He has clearly shown that Earth has a greenhouse effect, in direct disagreement to what many claim at this site. His point is that the water vapor is so dominate a greenhouse gas, that adding more CO2, or any other absorbing gas at modest levels, has a negligible added effect. Misunderstanding his result is clearly part of the ignorance shown at this site.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]I think a point has to be made in regards of Dr Miskolczi. He has clearly shown that Earth has a greenhouse effect, in direct disagreement to what many claim at this site. [/quote]

      Dr Miskolczi has clearly shown that Earth has no greenhouse effect, nor greenhouse gas of any sort. Dr Miskolczi has clearly shown that the variable WV in the atmosphere with its latent heat powering more than half of all exit flux to space is in control of all surface and atmospheric temperature. Do any of you Climate Clowns have any idea of what determines the amount of that variable WV?

      [/quote]His point is that the water vapor is so dominate a [s]greenhouse gas,[/s] cooling factor, that adding more CO2, or any other absorbing gas at modest levels, has a negligible added effect. Misunderstanding his result is clearly part of the ignorance shown at this site.[/quote]

      No gas in this atmosphere reduces any radiative exit flux. Show any error in Derek Alkers presentation. Misunderstanding his result, with intentional ignorance, is limited to yourself and Joel Shore in this thread. :-*

      • Avatar

        Joel Shore

        |

        “Misunderstanding his result, with intentional ignorance, is limited to yourself and Joel Shore in this thread.”

        The reason why we are the only ones here that understand the science correctly is because so few serious scientists will even wander over to PSI…Even most skeptics don’t take you guys serious.

        Why Leonard Weinstein or I try to educate those who refuse to prefer to remain ignorant is a weakness of ours. There are only a few of us who are willing to beat our head against the wall for no apparent benefit.

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Why Leonard Weinstein or I try to educate those who refuse to prefer to remain ignorant is a weakness of ours. There are only a few of us who are willing to beat our head against the wall for no apparent benefit.[/quote]

          Joel, both myself and Pat invited you and Leonard to define/delineate your “greenhouse effect” and you refused/declined. Then you resorted to the whining and name calling that is so characteristic people that maintain cult-based beliefs. So . . . it doesn’t seem to me that it is your head that you are beating.

          • Avatar

            Leonard Weinstein

            |

            You appear to have not read all of my writeup at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WPeBO_Ra9mkhWjv0J0SNmyRzHFVE9zPP8xRDUpR08jc/edit?usp=sharing . The last paragraph at that site exactly defines what is described as the planetary greenhouse effect. It is just the combination of raising the average effective altitude of outgoing radiation to space and the lapse rate. I and many other have written more detailed versions numerous times. Obviously a greenhouse (convective blocked structure) act differently from a planetary greenhouse effect (radiation resistive atmosphere with no convective blocking), but the terminology has become commonly used, so we call it a greenhouse effect. The net result is an increase in average temperature over the case for no radiation absorption. Your comments show profound ignorance of physics, and you seem unwilling to learn.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]You appear to have not read all of my writeup at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WPeBO_Ra9mkhWjv0J0SNmyRzHFVE9zPP8xRDUpR08jc/edit?usp=sharing . The last paragraph at that site exactly defines what is described as the planetary greenhouse effect. It is just the combination of raising the average effective altitude of outgoing radiation to space and the lapse rate. I and many other have written more detailed versions numerous times.
            Obviously a greenhouse (convective blocked structure) act differently from a planetary greenhouse effect (radiation resistive atmosphere with no convective blocking), but the terminology has become commonly used,[/quote]

            Such “radiation resistive”can only occur by some rethermalization action by the radiative flux itself . You have no concept of how such may occur in this atmosphere, let alone any evidence of such.

            [quote] so we call it a greenhouse effect. The net result is an increase in average temperature over the case for no radiation absorption. Your comments show profound ignorance of physics, and you seem unwilling to learn.[/quote]

            And your Pufunny,Pfake, Pfizzics are only your Pfantasy. Please describe what may be possible in this physical vs, all of your Pfantasy 😡

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            I read it. It is mostly accurate and informative. But you seem to have fallen prey to rather obvious propaganda notions. You seem to suggest that some gases absorb/emit radiation and convert it to kinetic energy (heat) and vice versa and others do not. All gases absorb/emit radiation and convert it to kinetic energy (heat) and vice versa. Why do you believe this? My guess is that you are confused about the role of infrared radiation. You’ve conflated it with heat. This is common. Being carbon based lifeforms with a high water content, us human think of infrared as heat and other wavelengths as not heat, which is false.

            Beyond that you essentially admit/declare that the phrase “greenhouse” effect is artifice. There is no substantive basis for it. It’s a tradition. It’s propaganda.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Joel, both myself and Pat invited you and Leonard to define/delineate your “greenhouse effect” and you refused/declined. Then you resorted to the whining and name calling that is so characteristic people that maintain cult-based beliefs. So . . it doesn’t seem to me that it is your head that you are beating.[/quote]

            Jim,
            This is the entire intent of the Pfunny, Pfake,
            Pfizzics, Pfolk. They are all the walking, and spouting dead! [b]Someone sometime should [/b]take care if that! 😀 😆 🙂

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            You have had it explained to you plenty of times (as Leonard noted, he gave you a link).

            So, please quit wasting our time and pretending that your denial of science has anything to do with it not being explained to you, or what not. It has to do with your being a complete slave to your ideological convictions and thus being completely impervious to science or rational arguments.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]You have had it explained to you plenty of times (as Leonard noted, he gave you a link).

            So, please quit wasting our time and pretending that your denial of science has anything to do with it not being explained to you, or what not. It has to do with your being a complete slave to your ideological convictions and thus being completely impervious to science or rational arguments.[/quote]

            I have only two beliefs:
            I believe I will sleep in this morning!
            I believe I will have another beer!

            Just where is any evidence of any truth, in your inane spouting? :sigh:

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            If you believe in something you can’t describe and for which you have zero empirical evidence, whether it be greenhouse effect (in your case) latent heat (in Pat Obar’s case) or that some gases don’t absorb heat (in Leonard’s case) you are harboring pseudoscience.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]If you believe in something you can’t describe and for which you have zero empirical evidence, whether it be greenhouse effect (in your case) latent heat (in Pat Obar’s case) or that some gases don’t absorb heat (in Leonard’s case) you are harboring pseudoscience.[/quote]

            The [b]measured[/b] latent heat of evaporation of H2O is 2260 Joules/gm at 100 degrees Celsius and 2500 Joules/gm at 0 Celsius. Look at any of the steam tables done over the last 200 years. Latent heat of H2O is probably the most often substance property measured, ever! 😛

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            What is your source? How is/was it measured. Or do you expect me to take your word on this?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]What is your source? How is/was it measured. Or do you expect me to take your word on this?[/quote]

            My source is my very own measurement that for me was close enough for checking the published numbers. Just what are your own methods of measurement and the result. If you need help on how to measure, please ask me or anyone else on this thread! 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            You and Joe Postma should start a company that makes engines that run on the power of cold steam. I suppose you are waiting for your patent to go through before you reveal your experimental data. What’s your next project, a time machine?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            I notice no measurement data for your claims. Do you know how to measure latent heat of evaporation? Have you ever measured anything?
            What? When? What are the numbers?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Latent heat is heat that becomes available/evident as a result of a phase change. You claim to have evidence/proof that evaporation/condensation are phase changes (in regard to steam persisting in our atmosphere at ambient temperatures). I know you have no such evidence/proof. So, IMO, your claims to have measured latent heat (which can only be associated with a phase change or something similar) are about equally as valid as people that claim evidence/proof of the “greenhouse effect.” So, your talk about having measured latent heat are like you talking about achieving time travel, or something to that effect.

            One thing I’ve learned about the cultural realities of sciences is that once somebody believes something they never stop believing.

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            Can you get an empty 2 liter plastic soft drink bottle with a screw cap? If so, run some hot water (~50 to 60 deg C), and fill the plastic bottle about 1/4 full, and screw the cap on until ti seals.

            Now, wait while the bottle and water cool.

            Observe What happens Can you explain it?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            It will demonstrate vapor pressure. And, if you/I were to quantify it the analysis would prove that there never was any steam in the bottle. Just vapor.

            If you refuse to perform a quantitative analysis the results will only reinforce what you believe.

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            My favorite book on the subject is “Thermodynamic Properties of Steam” Joseph H. Keenan and Frederick G. Keyes Copyright 1936.
            The book summarizes the findings of an extensive international investigation sponsored by ASME of the thermodynamic properties of ice, water and steam including extensive exacting measurements and verification over the course of more than a decade by researchers in the US, England, Germany and Czechoslovakia.

            The first edition of this book had 39 or 40 printings, and remained unchanged until ~1968. The book is in English units, but newer editions with metric units don’t seem to have as much background info or include as many properties as were outlined in the first edition, and the values given in the tables of the book remain remarkably close to any more recently reported value, plus used copies are easy to find, and quite inexpensive.

            Perhaps if you read it, your delusions concerning the non existence of water vapor will evaporate.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            I own the book. It sits right in front of me at this instant. Tell me what page I have to turn to to confirm the existence of “cold steam.”

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Yes, Espy. The “storm king”. He is one of the founding fathers of the religion of meteorology. He never did an experiment in his whole life. You might as well be sending me to Al Gore as a reference for the “greenhouse effect.”

            Espy established the pseudoscientific approach that is the standard for meteorology to this day. They don’t do experiments and, in fact, bristle at the suggestion. Espy established this precedent.

            More on Espy:
            Did you hear the one about the guy that goes to buy a suit?
            http://wp.me/p4JijN-3j

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            Please refer to Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.

            Latent heat is the difference between the saturated vapor enthalpy and the saturated liquid enthalpy. Notice that all three tables start at temperatures found in the atmosphere.

            If you understand that vapor is a gas, and that components of a gas mixture each contribute to the pressure (Dalton’s Law), You should be able to figure out that you have been blowing smoke.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            I knew you were talking out of your lower orifice. Just like James Pollard Espy, you just assume vapor and gas are the same. This is a plainly dumb assumption.

            If you can’t distinguish between what you know/understand and what you believe you should keep your nose out of science.

            If it will make you feel any better I will allow you to make a retraction.

            Fair enough?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            By by Jim. 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            I knew you would not a respond, Dave. That’s pretty typical for pseudoscientists. Many science pretenders confuse the cognitive disonance they feel from reading a complex technical document for scientific validity. That is a big reason AGW has become so popular.

            Exposing your kind of incompetence is especially easy for anybody that understands socratic interrogation techniques. So, if it is any consolation, you never had a chance.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]I knew you would not a respond, Dave. That’s pretty typical for pseudoscientists. Many science pretenders confuse the cognitive disonance they feel from reading a complex technical document for scientific validity. That is a big reason AGW has become so popular. [/quote]

            And why so many other pretenders such as:
            Gary Novack,Doug Cotton,Joseph Postma, Jim McGinn, and all Lukewarmists, that accept [b]any[/b] NASA Goddard CAGW BS!

            Exposing your kind of incompetence Jim, is especially easy for anybody that has actually done anything at all! 😳

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            How dare you put me in the same category as Joe postma!

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            Please see my response above. You should do more reading, and less writing.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Don’t feel bad. Your error is fairly common. Many science pretenders confuse the cognitive dissonance they feel from reading a complex technical document for scientific validity.

            Maybe you should find a different hobby.

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Don’t feel bad. Your error is fairly common. Many science pretenders confuse the cognitive dissonance they feel from reading a complex technical document for scientific validity.

            Maybe you should find a different hobby.[/quote]

            If you were addressing me, your confusion continues to astonish.

            Have you figured out what latent heat is?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            LOL. Science phoneys *always* talk big about a book they read to try to convince you they are real smart. And then they completely dodge addressing anything substantive.

            You are a pretender. Go away.

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]LOL. Science phoneys *always* talk big about a book they read to try to convince you they are real smart. And then they completely dodge addressing anything substantive.

            You are a pretender. Go away.[/quote]

            You are clearly a troll, possibly a paid conspirator troll, whose obvious intent is to obfuscate and confuse. Your site makes this clear.

            Is this all you could find after dropping out of the eighth grade, or did you answer an ad for one of O’s shovel ready jobs?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Engineers lack the ability to distinguish between what they understand and what they believe. It’s a pointless to argue with you simpletons as it is to argue with the worst AGW loons.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Engineers lack the ability to distinguish between what they understand and what they believe. It’s a pointless to argue with you simpletons as it is to argue with the worst AGW loons.[/quote]

            The very worst AGW loon. is the self confirmed troll known as Jim McGinn! You certainly in the same loony bin as Joe Postma. 😛

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Do you have any evidence of gaseous H2O in our atmosphere? No.

            Why do you believe something for which you have zero evidence?

            Do you engineers really think your in same league as a real scientist?

            Did you know science involves facts and facts have no political affiliation?

            Did you know that if you don’t continually make considerable effort to distinguish between the things you believe and the things you actually understand that you have about zero chance of making a discovery.

            Pat, I wouldn’t pretend to be able to do what you do. You shouldn’t pretend to be able to do what I do.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]Have you figured out what latent heat is?[/quote]

            No. Nobody has. That is why you can’t find anything on it. Along those lines, since you believe it is instrumental in our atmosphere and I do not, why don’t you endeavor to delineate and explain it’s causal efficacy. Just think, if you do that you will be the first person on this planet to have done so!!!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            If you lie to other people about what you understand then most likely you are also lieing to yourself. And if you lie to yourself you will never make progress in science.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Latent heat is heat that becomes available/evident as a result of a phase change. You claim to have evidence/proof that evaporation/condensation are phase changes (in regard to steam persisting in our atmosphere at ambient temperatures). I know you have no such evidence/proof.[/quote]

            I have measured the amount of energy required
            to convert a specific mass of isothermal liquid water, to the gas or water vapor state.
            The reverse measurement of recovery of latent heat of vaporization to liquid I have witnessed but not personally performed for others to witness.

            [quote] So, IMO, your claims to have measured latent heat (which can only be associated with a phase change or something similar) are about equally as valid as people that claim evidence/proof of the “greenhouse effect.” So, your talk about having measured latent heat are like you talking about achieving time travel, or something to that effect.[/quote]

            Well done Jim, a grand example of what you observe of yourself. 🙂

            [/quote]One thing I’ve learned about the cultural realities of sciences is that once somebody believes something they never stop believing.[/quote]

            Jim McGinn, You are, yes, quite a believer in your-own fantasy. Where are your measurements of any of your fantasy.

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]I own the book. It sits right in front of me at this instant. Tell me what page I have to turn to to confirm the existence of “cold steam.”[/quote]

            Perhaps, If you would ever tell anyone what you may mean by [b]steam, cold steam, hot steam[/b] someone could help you!

            Vernacular: STEAM
            The condensing visible drizzle drops of water that form when water vapor condenses, fog, clouds, the visible whiteness forming above boiling water.

            Technical: STEAM
            The gas form of H2O, or water vapor. Generally limited to the cases where H2O gas is the major constituent of all gas components within a mixture. Such is never visible.
            For example, a 2000 psi saturated steam steam 636 degree Fahrenheit, small leak into STP will travel 6 feet before the transfer of sufficient latent heat to become visible water.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Latent heat is heat that becomes available/evident as a result of a phase change. You claim to have evidence/proof that evaporation/condensation are phase changes (in regard to steam persisting in our atmosphere at ambient temperatures). I know you have no such evidence/proof.[/quote]I have measured the amount of energy required to convert a specific mass of isothermal liquid water, to the gas or water vapor state.[/quote]Which? Gas (steam)? Evaporate (vapor)? Both? Did you publish you methods procedures? Data? Can you explain the, purported, laboratory techniques you, purportedly, employed to detect/validate the existence of “cold steam” — purportedly? Or is all of this proprietary? If not then why the secrecy? Is it a matter of national security? Are you a secret agent? Do you have a shoe phone?[quote name=”Pat Obar”]The reverse measurement of recovery of latent heat of vaporization to liquid I have witnessed but not personally performed for others to witness.[/quote]Anybody that has had a glass of ice water on a warm, humid day has witnessed it also. But maybe your results were different. Did the water in the glass come to a boil in your case? I completely understand why you would conceal the procedures that brought you your amazing results. Are you going to apply for a patent?[quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]So, IMO, your claims to have measured latent heat (which can only be associated with a phase change or something similar) are about equally as valid as people that claim evidence/proof of the “greenhouse effect.” So, your talk about having measured latent heat are like you talking about achieving time travel, or something to that effect.[/quote]Where are your measurements of any of your fantasy.[/quote]I believe integrity in science is paramount. If I measure something I always make my data public. But I completely understand why others might have different standards.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]Perhaps, If you would ever tell anyone what you may mean by [b]steam, cold steam, hot steam[/b] someone could help you![/quote]I’m sure your assistance would help me greatly. But I wouldn’t want to trouble you. What you are doing is so much more important than what I am doing. I don’t think you have yet to realize the full implications of the discoveries that yourself, BWD, and JP have made. You may have solved the energy crisis. Whatever the case, undoubtedly the world will soon be driving cars made with your engines that run off the power of evaporation.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
            Latent heat is heat that becomes available/evident as a result of a phase change.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

            Now neutral!!!
            It seems that your [b]evident[/b] must be some sensible heat change, requiring a temperature change. Good God! is there anything left to do with “solving nonsense”?

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”] You claim to have evidence/proof that evaporation/condensation are phase changes (in regard to steam persisting in our atmosphere at ambient temperatures). I know you have no such evidence/proof.[/quote]

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            I have measured the amount of energy required to convert a specific mass of isothermal liquid water, to the gas or water vapor state.[/quote]
            Which? Gas (steam)? Evaporate (vapor)? Both? Did you publish you methods procedures? Data? Can you explain the, purported, laboratory techniques you, purportedly, employed to detect/validate the existence of “cold steam” — purportedly? Or is all of this proprietary? If not then why the secrecy? Is it a matter of national security? Are you a secret agent? Do you have a shoe phone?

            I have measured energy,Joules (Watt seconds) required, to convert a mass of isothermic liquid H2O to the same gaseous isothermic H2O at various temperatures. 🙂

            Jim, what have you ever done in your entire miserable life

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]The reverse measurement of recovery of latent heat of vaporization to liquid I have witnessed but not personally performed for others to witness.[/quote]

            Anybody that has had a glass of ice water on a warm, humid day has witnessed it also. But maybe your results were different. Did the water in the glass come to a boil in your case? I completely understand why you would conceal the procedures that brought you your amazing results. Are you going to apply for a patent?

            So, IMO, your claims to have measured latent heat (which can only be associated with a phase change or something similar) are about equally as valid as people that claim evidence/proof of the “greenhouse effect.” So, your talk about having measured latent heat are like you talking about achieving time travel, or something to that effect.[/quote]

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            Where are your measurements of any of your fantasy.[/quote]

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Support your claims or make a retraction.

            Thunderstorms take place at ambient temperatures. So,your isothermal confusion is not relevant.

            If you can’t follow a mildly complex discussion go find another hobby.

            Address the issue or kindly go away.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Support your claims or make a retraction. [/quote]

            I have provided all of my measurement.

            [quote] Thunderstorms take place at ambient temperatures. So,your isothermal confusion is not relevant. If you can’t follow a mildly complex discussion go find another hobby.

            Address the issue or kindly go away.[/quote]

            Do you have any any issue whatsoever?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            When your only tool is a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]When your only tool is a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail.[/quote]

            Indeed kid.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]I believe integrity in science is paramount. If I measure something I always make my data public. But I completely understand why others might have different standards.[/quote]

            As you have never measured anything you have no data, public or not, you have only insane spouting.

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Perhaps, If you would ever tell anyone what you may mean by [b]steam, cold steam, hot steam[/b] someone could help you![/quote]

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”I’m sure your assistance would help me greatly. But I wouldn’t want to trouble you. What you are doing is so much more important than what I am doing. I don’t think you have yet to realize the full implications of the discoveries that yourself, BWD, and JP have made. You may have solved the energy crisis. Whatever the case, undoubtedly the world will soon be driving cars made with your engines that run off the power of evaporation.[/quote]

            Grin 🙂

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Please check with Jimmy Watt! 😉 8) :-* 😮 😛

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Maybe you should check with alchololics anonymous.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            So, you say there is more energy (2500 Joules/gm) in ice than there is in steam (2260 Joules/gm)?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]So, you say there is more energy (2500 Joules/gm) in ice than there is in steam (2260 Joules/gm)?[/quote]

            Never, there is more latent heat in H2O gas made from near ice-water, than from near STP boiling water. Why must you always get it backward? Latent heat, is that energy required to [b]phase change[/b] an isotherm!! It is never sensible heat. :sigh:

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            I quoted you directly. The rest of what you states here is complete gibberish.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]I quoted you directly. The rest of what you states here is complete gibberish.[/quote]

            I stated only the energy required for isothermic phase change, never where such energy may reside! :zzz

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            When your only tools is a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail.

      • Avatar

        Joel Shore

        |

        By the way, absent this discussion of what Miskolczi says is anything about whether Miskolczi even makes sense scientifically. And, the answer is that it does not. It is essentially scientific gibberish; he proposes that the atmosphere obeys the virial theorem, rather than that it is supported by the Earth below it and all sorts of other nonsense.

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          [quote name=”Joel Shore”]By the way, absent this discussion of what Miskolczi says is anything about whether Miskolczi even makes sense scientifically. And, the answer is that it does not. It is essentially scientific gibberish; he proposes that the atmosphere obeys the virial theorem, rather than that it is supported by the Earth below it and all sorts of other nonsense.[/quote]

          Ferenc Miskolczi use of the Rudolf Clausis virial therom is truly brilliant. For molecules in the stratosphere with very low pressure and no constraint by nearby molecules Is this not each stuff is in some elliptical orbit about the Earth center of mass. The careful measurement is that not quite! The low pressure atmosphere is quite weird!

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            Above the troposphere, at very low pressures, the molecules can travel at higher velocities with less frequent intermolecular collisions.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]Above the troposphere, at very low pressures, the molecules can travel at higher velocities with less frequent intermolecular collisions.[/quote]

            Indeed and from the measurements there seem to be much clumping (colloids) in both stratosphere and troposphere producing weather. Direct evidence of gross incompetence! 🙂

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Of the CAGW theorists. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    I keep seeing comments that air with a lot of water vapor is heavier than dry air. The molecular weight of water vapor is 18, while the average molecular weight of air is 29. Thus at a constant total pressure and temperature, higher humidity results in LOWER density, not higher (the partial pressures of the water vapor and air add up to the total local pressure). There is a lot going on in air movement, but the point made here only addresses the buoyancy of moist vs dry air.

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      Leonard, the fact that you believe that the molecular weight of water vapor is 18 does not mean that it is 18 any more than the fact that you believe CO2 traps heat means that CO2 traps heat. Likewise, the fact that you believe that moist air (at ambient temperatures) is lighter than dry air does not mean that moist air (at ambient temperatures) is lighter than dry air. More concisely, beliefs don’t determine truth. Facts determine truth.

      The lesson to be learned here, Leonard, is to make sure you get your facts right before you go around declaring that you have arrived at truth. If you had been more careful in this respect you would have not made the error of believing that CO2 has properties that it does not.

      Likewise, if you had been more careful you would not have made the mistake you made above. The molecular weight of water vapor is not 18. You, undoubtedly, have conflated the concept of vapor with the concept of gas. The molecular weight of gaseous H2O (steam) is 18. The molecular weight of H2O vapor is 18 x X (X being the number of molecules in the vapor droplet/cluster.)

      See how easy it is. Establish your facts first and make sure you get your facts right, then tell us what you think you understand.

      I hope that helps.

      more than the fact that you believe CO2 traps heat means that CO2 traps heat.

      The molecular weight of water vapor is 18, while the average molecular weight of air is 29. Thus at a constant total pressure and temperature, higher humidity results in LOWER density, not higher (the partial pressures of the water vapor and air add up to the total local pressure). There is a lot going on in air movement, but the point made here only addresses the buoyancy of moist vs dry air.

      • Avatar

        Joel Shore

        |

        solving:

        I have a guarantee for you that you can take to the bank: You are never, ever, ever going to convince any serious scientists of your ideas. Between you, Doug Cotton, and Pat Ober, this little corner of the internet is truly a sight to behold!

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          Well, Joel, let’s just say that what you consider a serious scientist and what I consider a serious scientist are very, very different.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Indeed…On that we can both agree!

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Leonard, the fact that you believe that the molecular weight of water vapor is 18 does not mean that it is 18 any more than the fact that you believe CO2 traps heat means that CO2 traps heat. Likewise, the fact that you believe that moist air (at ambient temperatures) is lighter than dry air does not mean that moist air (at ambient temperatures) is lighter than dry air. More concisely, beliefs don’t determine truth. Facts determine truth. [/quote]

        Jim,
        Please at least try to acknowledge that both water vapor, [b]the scientific name for the gas mono-trimer of H2O,[/b] and suspended moisture are always present in this troposphere. The only differences are the much higher density of moisture and that the condensation of H2O gas to moisture has already [b]transfered 2400 Joules/gram to sensible heat[/b] powering both EMR exit flux to space and, all atmospheric wind including all circular motions. The unstable dense moisture can only turn to precipitation, with no further power transfer. Liquid water as moisture is in the air for the same reason that birds are in the air! 🙂

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          Given the reasoning evident here, Pat, it’s a wonder that you don’t believe in the “greenhouse effect.”

          Pat, if and when you come to your senses, here are some things for you to read:
          Big Wave Dave Wipes Out:
          http://wp.me/p4JijN-3OH
          Where do Winds Come From?
          http://wp.me/p4JijN-3Ry

        • Avatar

          solvingtornadoes

          |

          Pat,

          Can you explain to us how H2O magically changes its boiling point? Please provide support for this fantasy.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Pat,

            Can you explain to us how H2O magically changes its boiling point? Please provide support for this fantasy.[/quote]

            The boiling temperature of water is always the same as its dew point all the way down to -40 Celsius where H2O vapor partial pressure goes to zero. You can still have snowflakes that are still somewhat buoyant in the atmosphere. At 100 Celsius this partial pressure becomes 760 mmHg, and can displace the other gas molecules. the dew point is the temperature where WV gas and liquid H20 are at equilibrium pressure independent of other gases.
            I refuse to present the opinion of others. Joel would call my engineering texts pre-modern as they are all based on measurement, even if the measurer’s guess of what was being measured was a bit off. 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Pat, Can you explain to us how H2O magically changes its boiling point? Please provide support for this fantasy.
            [/quote]
            The boiling temperature of water is always the same as its dew point all the way down to -40 Celsius where H2O vapor partial pressure goes to zero.[/quote]
            LOL. You make global warming groupies seem smart and honest in comparison. You are completely clueless. So, uh, if dew point and boiling point are the same thing then why have different names?
            Other than you imagination where is the evidence of this notion that H2O boiling point is changeable? Or is the fact that you believe it all that matters?
            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            You can still have snowflakes that are still somewhat buoyant in the atmosphere.
            [/quote]
            OMG. The comedy continues. So, despite the fact that snowflakes have thousands of times more mass per volume than a steam molecules, which is only ⅓ less massive than either an O2 or N2 molecule, and tens to hundreds of time more mass per volume than an H2O droplet/cluster it can be buoyant in our atmosphere! Wow.
            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]At 100 Celsius this partial pressure becomes 760 mmHg, and can displace the other gas molecules. the dew point is the temperature where WV gas and liquid H20 are at equilibrium pressure independent of other gases.
            [/quote]
            LOL. Okay, now explain to us what the “partial pressure.” is at 99 Celsius (assume pressure of 1 ATM). Support your (absurd) assetions with real data. Not your imagination.
            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            I refuse to present the opinion of others.
            [/quote]
            How convenient. And you also refuse to support your wild assertions with anything substantive/empirical also. Right? If not, then show us your data. (If you take issue with this request let me suggest you find another hobby. Science involves facts, not imagination.) Moreover, I am sure the “slayers” will turn a blind eye to your absurd speculations, that being the standard procedure when addressing ludicrosity from political allies.
            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            Joel would call my engineering texts pre-modern as they are all based on measurement, even if the measurer’s guess of what was being measured was a bit off. 🙂
            [/quote]
            It’s comical how you thermodynamic “experts,” resort to the same argumentive tactics as the worst AGW advocates as soon as you are outside your narrow focus thermodynamics. Nothing you’ve stated is based on anything but your imagination.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I cannot believe anyone can believe that a passively heated object can “backradiate” and cause the source of the radiative emission to increase in temperature.

    And I cannot believe anyone can believe that if you repeat this with numerous “layers” of passively heated objects you can have infinite temperatures !

    Because that is exactly what Leonard and other “greenhouse” believers claim time and again.

    If it were a real phenomenon then there would be no climate alarm – simply capture all CO2 emissions from coal fired power stations inside any number of concentric insulating spheres and watch perpetual motion solve all our energy needs !!

    I can’t believe any rational person can postulate this is remotely possible !

    What about the fact that the passively heated object requires all the energy output from the source to simply maintain whatever temperature it reaches regardless of how that heating occurs.

    There is no “net” energy – it is all consumed in increasing the internal energy of the passive reservoir. The energy radiated by it can only impact on a cooler object in the same manner “photons” with insufficient energy do not cause any photovoltaic effect no matter how many impact a solar cell.

    I can’t believe any rational person can postulate this endless recycling of energy with ever increasing thermal effect is even remotely possible !

    • Avatar

      Richard Cronin

      |

      Good sir – I think you, and most people on this thread, are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming driven by CO2. I’m a strong advocate of the geothermal cause for our current warming phenomenon. Specifically, I would offer the publications from Dr. J. Marvin Herndon as very plausible and explain a host of planetary observations.

      One of the concepts put forward by Dr. Herndon is that all planets and stars basically form the same way — by accretion. Logically, all the heaviest elements and minerals ( including the fissionable Actinides) go to the core of every planet or star to form a naturally occuring fission reactor. This phenomenon was first predicted by Dr. Paul Kazuo Kuroda in 1956, and subsequently demonstrated at Oklo, Gabon in 1972, when scientists determined that a natural accumulation of the fissionable elements accumulated into a critical mass about 1.7 billion years ago and continued on and off for a few hundred thousand years.

      For the Earth, Herndon describes this core of our planet as the GeoReactor. With no moderator (i.e. no graphite rods), it is a Fast Neutron breeder reactor, self-replenishing and self-limiting on temperature. The containment structure is a half billion psi. The GeoReactor is also self-modulating. As fission proceeds, the non-fissionable daughter elements accumulate and dampen criticality (cooling period). Over centuries, the non-fissionables thermally diffuse out and full power output restored (warming period). Viewing Paleoclimatological observations since pre-Roman times, the present warming/cooling cycle totals about 8 or 9 centuries. The swings were broader in temperature and duration during the major Ice Ages and warm Interglacials, as the GeoReactor was consolidating. The ignition source for fusion in the stars is the massively contained fission trigger at the core of each star, working the same as a thermonuclear device. See http://www.nuclearplanet.com

      • Avatar

        Squid2112

        |

        @Richard Cronin,

        Yeah, and Dr. Who can fly through time [b]and[/b] space.

        Get back to the topic at hand, and that is, a “radiative greenhouse effect” is impossible. Heating by so-called “back radiation” is impossible. The whole “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is null and doesn’t exist in this universe.

        Whether or not there are fancy dandy fast breeder reactors in the core of our planet is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

        Speaking of which, I wonder if that big burning ball in the sky has anything to do with our planetary temperatures. Ya think?

        Sheeesh … sometimes, I read brilliance within these comments, and sometimes, I just shake my head… 😮

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          [quote name=”Squid2112″]

          Sheeesh … sometimes, I read brilliance within these comments, and sometimes, I just shake my head… :o[/quote]
          Shaking head is good! How do you discern brilliance? 🙂

          /

          /

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          @ Squid
          You’ve got the wrong end of the stick Squid. Richard Cronin’s comment was more directed at Doug Cotton, in an attempt to counteract his crackpot “heat creep” theory, whereby the sun maintains the core temperature of the planets.
          Many thanks for your enlightening comments Richard Cronin.

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            Mack, I understand, but that just plays into all of the extraordinary crap that Doug shoots out there. The issue at hand is relatively simple. Is there a “greenhouse effect” that heats our planet warmer than it would otherwise be? Or is there not?

            Many people in and around PSI (whom I would call “brilliant”) have aptly demonstrated beyond refute that the answer to this question is an emphatic [b]NO[/b].

            Now, if Doug and Richard would like to continue to play their little game of shoots and ladders, that is fine, but that is no longer germane to this article and is of no relevance to the discussion at hand. I am sure these two, also brilliant individuals, can find a suitable alternative medium for their play.

            Just sayin’… 😉

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Jim, there is no knowledge required. Like a large post between masses [b]equal opposing force[/b] there is no acceleration of mass. (power transfer). At equal temperature there is no potential difference for any sort of power transfer. An apple, in orbit, with no potential differential gravitational force never falls.
    Temperature itself never defines some power transfer. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Silent Reader

    |

     

    [b]A QUESTION FOR ALL ISOTHERMALISTS (yes that’s you)[/b]

    How does a fixed location on the equator of Venus acquire the necessary extra thermal energy to rise in temperature from about 732K to 737K over the course of the four-month-long sunlit period? The only transfers of thermal energy by radiation between the surface and atmosphere are always outwards from the hotter surface to the less hot troposphere, day and night. The Sun’s radiation getting through to the surface is less than 10% of what Earth’s surface receives, and that would not “heat” even a blackbody to any temperature above about -130°C, not even in a billion years. That location does cool again by about 5 degrees during the Venus night. So, if the Sun’s radiation were switched off somehow, the whole planet would easily cool by hundreds of degrees in just a century or so. But it will not even cool by 10 degrees in the next billion years if the Sun’s energy keeps on radiating at current levels, warming it back up each day after it cooled by night, just as happens on Earth and all planets and moons. But the Sun’s radiation can only raise the temperature of regions that are less than about 400K, according to Stefan Boltzmann calculations, and so how does that absorbed energy high up in the atmosphere then get to the surface?

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Silent Reader”] 

      [b]A QUESTION FOR ALL ISOTHERMALISTS (yes that’s you)[/b]

      How does a fixed location on the equator of Venus acquire the necessary extra thermal energy to rise in temperature from about 732K to 737K over the course of the four-month-long sunlit period? The only transfers of thermal energy by radiation between the surface and atmosphere are always outwards from the hotter surface to the less hot troposphere, day and night. The Sun’s radiation getting through to the surface is less than 10% of what Earth’s surface receives, and that would not “heat” even a blackbody to any temperature above about -130°C, not even in a billion years. That location does cool again by about 5 degrees during the Venus night. So, if the Sun’s radiation were switched off somehow, the whole planet would easily cool by hundreds of degrees in just a century or so. But it will not even cool by 10 degrees in the next billion years if the Sun’s energy keeps on radiating at current levels, warming it back up each day after it cooled by night, just as happens on Earth and all planets and moons. But the Sun’s radiation can only raise the temperature of regions that are less than about 400K, according to Stefan Boltzmann calculations, and so how does that absorbed energy high up in the atmosphere then get to the surface?[/quote]

      Another Doug Cotton inane question!! Doug please attempt to answer your own questions!

      The rest of us can only giggle! Temperature of all various masses can be only the result of the deterministic, power transfer, never the cause of spontaneous energy transfer!

      • Avatar

        Silent Reader

        |

        What a load of nonsense. Warm one side of a room, turn the heater off, sit on the other side and see whether or not “spontaneous energy transfer” (it’s called convective heat transfer) moves some warmth towards you, perhaps making you hot under the collar with embarrassment about being so wrong about such a basic phenomenon in the real world.

      • Avatar

        Silent ReaderA question is a

        |

        A question is a question. Any comment which avoids answering it indicates a lack of knowledge as to how it can be answered. You cannot answer it, now can you? Prove me wrong!

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          [quote name=”Silent ReaderA question is a”]A question is a question. Any comment which avoids answering it indicates a lack of knowledge as to how it can be answered. You cannot answer it, now can you? Prove me wrong![/quote]

          Doug Cotton, You were proven wrong way before you were even conceived. Please go away peacefully!

  • Avatar

    Silent Reader

    |

    [b]ADMINISTRATOR[/b]

    Richard Cronin (who is reading my paper) is endeavoring to have a genuine and serious discussion with me about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (about which you have incorrect understanding) and my hypothesis that is based on that law. It would be appreciated (in the interests of science) if you would cease deleting my replies to him and others. Such will be reposted promptly anyway.

    [b]No one has proved my hypothesis wrong, and it is supported by other published papers now in peer-reviewed media, as well as with centrifugal force experiments and copious planetary data, climate records etc.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Silent Reader

    |

    Poor Derek does not even understand what the Second Law is all about. Without any qualifications in physics he has no idea that the “hot to cold” thing he learnt in his school-boy physics is only a corollary that requires there to be no change in gravitational potential energy, because such a change would affect entropy. I doubt that Derek has a clue about how we can know when entropy is maximized. I doubt that he knows that entropy in an isolated system is a measure of the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials. He could read http://entropylaw.com of course but he doesn’t want to unlearn his school-boy physics. It’s more comfortable for him to cling to that, convince John O’Sullivan that he knows better than people like myself with degrees and decades of experience in teaching physics and engaging in post graduate study and research. Poor PSI – this will be the end of them as I draw this naive article to the attention of thousands unless they are quick enough to withdraw it and realize that Derek is a fraud. Have some non-fiction Easter reading [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url].

  • Avatar

    Richard Cronin

    |

    I don’t want to diminish the seriousness of this topic, but I do think the arts and humor can help us with weighty issues. We all miss George Carlin. I saw him perform live when I was an undergraduate. If the link doesn’t work, just search for “George Carlin” + “Earth with Plastics”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rld0KDcan_w

  • Avatar

    Silent Reader

    |

    Article

    [b]TEMPERATURE GRADIENT CAUSED BY GRAVITATION[/b]

    Chuanpingliao

    [b]International Journal of Modern Physics[/b] B (Impact Factor: 0.46). 01/2012; 23(22). DOI: 10.1142/S0217979209052893
    ABSTRACT Thermodynamic deduction and experimental results both demonstrate that [b]gravitation causes temperature gradient in an adiabatic system, i.e., gravithermal effect: The higher altitude the lower temperature.[/b]

    Source: [url]http://www.researchgate.net/publication/263879139_TEMPERATURE_GRADIENT_CAUSED_BY_GRAVITATION[/url]

    The implications for climate science are that it is not radiation from CO2 and water vapor that is raising the surface temperature, but gravity. The AGW fraud is debunked.

  • Avatar

    Silent Reader

    |

    Poor Derek does not even understand what the Second Law is all about. Without any qualifications in physics he has no idea that the “hot to cold” thing he learnt in his school-boy physics is only a corollary that requires there to be no change in gravitational potential energy, because such a change would affect entropy. I doubt that Derek has a clue about how we can know when entropy is maximized. I doubt that he knows that entropy in an isolated system is a measure of the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials. He could read http://entropylaw.com of course but he doesn’t want to unlearn his school-boy physics. It’s more comfortable for him to cling to that, convince John O’Sullivan that he knows better than people like myself with degrees and decades of experience in teaching physics and engaging in post graduate study and research. Poor PSI – this will be the end of them as I draw this naive article to the attention of thousands unless they are quick enough to withdraw it and realize that Derek is a fraud. Have some non-fiction Easter reading [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url]/

  • Avatar

    Richard Cronin

    |

    Derek Alker – Have you read of the proposals put forward by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon and the naturally occuring fission reactors at the core of every planet. Dr. Herndon’s many related concepts explain planetary formation, stellar ignition, the four (4) rocky inner planets, the asteroid belt, periodic heating and cooling cycles all the way back to the great Ice Ages and warm Interglacials and all of the simple life-givimg molecules that percolate up from within every planet or larger moon. See http://www.nuclearplanet.com

    • Avatar

      Derek Alker

      |

      THANK YOU Richard Cronin. No I have not read or heard of Dr J Marvin Herndon or his works. I will be doing so asap.

      That sounds a very interesting line of enquiry currently dismissed as geothermal is currently, and incorrectly in my opinion, dismissed. Just out of interest do you know if his works suggest a geothermal input to earth’s surface equivalent to, or about the same as “atmospheric back radiation” as the present climate science orthodoxy currently touts, unphysically?

    • Avatar

      Silent Reader

      |

      Fission is very variable. Whilst it and radioactive decay may contribute something in some planets (though not Uranus as there is no convincing evidence of significant net energy outflow) the probability of all planetary cores and surfaces being within 100° of just the right temperature to then “cool” at just the right rate down to just the right temperature at just the right altitude is less than one chance in 10^20. So that raises the odds of my being right in my paper about the supply of the extra required energy to support core temperatures.

      • Avatar

        Richard Cronin

        |

        Good sir – You are quite correct that fission is variable. One of the concepts put forward by Dr. Herndon is that all planets and stars basically form the same way — by accretion. Logically, all the heaviest elements and minerals ( including the fissionable Actinides) go to the core of every planet or star to form a naturally occuring fission reactor. For the Earth, Herndon describes it as the GeoReactor. With no moderator (i.e. no graphite rods), it is a Fast Neutron breeder reactor, self-replenishing and self-limiting on temperature. The containment structure is a half billion psi. The GeoReactor is also self-modulating. As fission proceeds, the non-fissionable daughter elements accumulate and dampen criticality (cooling period). Over centuries, the non-fissionables thermally diffuse out and full power output restored (warming period). Viewing Paleoclimatological observations since pre-Roman times, the present warming/cooling cycle totals about 8 or 9 centuries. The swings were broader in temperature and duration during the major Ice Ages and warm Interglacials, as the GeoReactor was consolidating. The ignition source for fusion in the stars is the massively contained fission trigger at the core of each star, working the same as a thermonuclear device.

        • Avatar

          Silent Reader

          |

          Yes, fission no doubt does happen in some planetary cores as I mention in my paper. But you have no basis for assuming it can maintain the existing temperatures, let alone keep them fairly uniform. Why do you suppose the core of the Moon is hotter than 1300°C?

          What does maintain all planetary core temperatures (and prevent even long-term cooling) will blow you mind when you understand the physics which no one in the world has been able to refute in two years since the paper was written – see the paper at http://climate-change-theory.com .

          • Avatar

            Silent Reader

            |

            By the way Richard, you’ll find the “Administrator” here will delete my comments within 24 hours or so, but don’t worry, I have copies and will keep re-posting them despite his childish antics, which are motivated by the desire to “protect” Postma and Alker who promote the IPCC isothermal garbage and then try to boost the solar radiation in the hope that they can explain Earth’s temperature. Alker avoids explaining Venus because he hasn’t had a holiday there yet. You can discuss anything on Roy Spencer’s thread from about a week ago. What’s in the paper is correct physics and I’m happy to answer any questions.

          • Avatar

            Richard Cronin

            |

            Douglas J. Cotton – I have downloaded your paper and will read it with interest. I am new to Principia Scientific, but I find the discourse quite a bit better than other discussion groups, which quickly degrade to vicious ad hominems. I do give credit to Dr. O’Sullivan and Derek Alker for giving us this forum. I would also offer that your paper regarding the Planetary Core and Dr. Herndon’s proposal of the GeoReactor may have more in common than we appreciate.

      • Avatar

        Richard Cronin

        |

        Sir – Re: No net heat observed coming from Uranus. I’d offer that the internal fission reactor within Uranus is reaching the end of its fuel cycle. This would explain the clockwise (retrograde) rotation of Uranus, as well as Venus. As the core of these planets cool, they pass below 1000 C, the Curie Point of Iron, where the Electromotive Force reverses direction, hence opposite planetary rotation. Please examine “Binding Energies”, the “Curve of Binding Energies”, and the “Iron Peak”. Fission and fusion are the natural complements in the Universe to give us all the elements of the Periodic Table, as well as the small building block molecules of life.

        • Avatar

          Silent Reader

          |

          Planets are not cooling off, and the core of Uranus should be around 5,000K based on its gravity and specific heat of the gases. I suggest you read the paper “[url=http://climate-change-theory.com
          ]Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures[/url]” peer-reviewed by our group.

        • Avatar

          Silent Reader

          |

          Fission is very variable. Whilst it and radioactive decay may contribute something in some planets (though not Uranus as there is no convincing evidence of significant net energy outflow) the probability of all planetary cores and surfaces being within 100° of just the right temperature to then “cool” at just the right rate down to just the right temperature at just the right altitude is less than one chance in 10^20. So that raises the odds of my being right in my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]paper[/url] about the supply of the extra required energy to support core temperatures.

  • Avatar

    Silent Reader

    |

    Ackler’s argument is that we should only divide the Sun’s radiation by two, not four. It’s wrong, but let’s say it’s right. He forgot to deduce 20% absorbed by the atmosphere. The energy diagrams say 168 watts per square meter is absorbed by the surface, but we’ll give him double that at 336. But now we need to deduct at least 100 for other cooling like evaporation, conduction and convection. After all, that energy has to be given up simultaneously while the Sun is trying to warm the surface. So now we have only 236 watts per square meter left. The black body temperature for that is 254K which is still too cold for my liking. Good luck PSI!

  • Avatar

    Silent Reader

    |

    It’s sad that PSI (via Derek) ..

    (a) forgets to deduct the 20% of incident solar radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere before it gets to the surface.

    (b) forgets that the Earth’s surface is not a black body because it loses heat by processes other than radiation – in fact it loses over 100 watts per square meter that way.

    (c) forgets that the Sun’s radiation is in fact spread over four times the surface area of the orthogonal disk with the same radius over the course of one revolution of the Earth. To treat that surface area as being only the area of two sides of a flat disk is indeed “science” that belongs to the Flat Earth age.

    I wonder how Derek explains what happens on Venus.

    But then his is self-taught physics as he admits. And yet he constantly considers himself knowledgeable enough to argue with PhD’s in physics, I’ve noticed. I wonder how he would get on arguing on Roy Spencer’s latest thread. Let’s see if he dares show his face in that somewhat more advanced discussion of atmospheric physics, entropy maximization etc.

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      [quote]I wonder how he would get on arguing on Roy Spencer’s latest thread[/quote]

      Hmm, Roy Spencer, you mean the “[b]Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still[/b]” Roy Spencer? … You mean THAT Roy Spencer?

      Pffffttt…. give me a break.

      While I admire his work with Christy and the UHA satellite temperature data, I do not utilize him as a credible source for information regarding physics.

      • Avatar

        Silent Reader

        |

        [i]I do not utilize him as a credible source for information regarding physics.[/i]

        Neither would I. He, like all Isothermalists who have no clues about maximum entropy production with diminishing energy potentials, think the troposphere would have been isothermal without water vapor etc, and thus the surface much colder. Hence they, like the IPCC, think water vapor does most of 33 degrees of warming (from the radiating temperature of 255K which is close enough) and so rain forests are at least 30 degrees hotter than dry regions, or so they imply.

    • Avatar

      Derek Alker

      |

      Doug, until you show how a rock knows it’s altitude, it can not KNOW it’s potential energy. Modern air travel is possible, which according to your Loschmidt based physics, it is not…

      I gave up with Roy when he would not admit that SF6 conducts away so fast recieved IR in a mixed gaseous atmosphere that it has no energy left to re-emit. He was stuck on, it’s a good absorber, so it MUST BE a good emitter.
      Sorry Roy, observation says differently. AND, nothing can re-emit what it has already conducted away…. THAT is creating energy..

      Also, as I have said to you before Doug, I have never been to Venus. I do not intend going. So I do not know what Venus is actually like, or what is happening there, in what is probably a totally different system anyway.

      I do not bother you Doug, please return the favour, and stop trying to bother me with your unphysical explanations.

      As for you and Roy, and THAT thread, you are welcome to waffle away to your hearts contents, I will not be watching / reading / noting. I have far better things to do with my time, IN REALITY.

      • Avatar

        Silent Reader

        |

        In other words, young Derek, you’re stumped by the figures I presented which prove that the Sun’s direct radiation cannot possibly account for all the required energy needed to explain the surface temperature plus the energy losses of over 100W/m^2 due to sensible heat transfers and phase changes.

        You have no knowledge or understanding of entropy maximization and the advanced thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory needed to explain all planetary temperatures and energy flows. That’s why you steer clear of discussing Venus with the weak excuse that you haven’y been there. Well Russian probes have been there – right down to the surface, so you can be pretty sure it’s not receiving more than about 20W/m^2 there. So how are YOU going to explain the surface warming from 732K to 737K during the 4-month Venus day?

        This is continued here …

        [url]http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/this-is-your-presidents-science-advisor/#comment-187079[/url]

        • Avatar

          Derek Alker

          |

          btw Doug what and where were you from 1952 to 1960?
          What were you writing? Was it published? If so where please?

          Thanks in advance,

          yours,
          with no pet rocks,
          Derek.

          • Avatar

            Silent Reader

            |

            In primary school then high school until 1962 when I got first class honors in physics and a high position in the state of NSW, and a scholarship in physics awarded by the University of Sydney Physics Dept.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Silent Reader”]In other words, young Derek, [/quote]

            [quote name=”Derek Alker”]btw Doug what and where were you from 1952 to 1960?
            What were you writing? Was it published? If so where please?[/quote]

            [quote name=”Silent Reader”]In primary school then high school until 1962 when I got first class honors in physics. [/quote]

            So Doug Cotton, You have never written anything that was not giggled away. Except for your paid for publishing Mad magazine, that is also giggled away by all!!

            Will you please go away peacefully?

          • Avatar

            Silent Reader

            |

            No I will not “go away” in the interest of science. Richard Cronin has downloaded my paper and may have questions. You comments are as childish as your giggling.

          • Avatar

            Silent Reader

            |

            Study the information that is readily available for Venus and Uranus, and come back when you can explain the required energy flows and the observed temperatures there, and in the core of the Moon.

      • Avatar

        Silent Reader

        |

        “what is probably a totally different system anyway. “

        Yes, well, I’m sorry to have to tell you, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics works everywhere and so my hypothesis based on that law also works everywhere, even on Venus.

        You can make your excuses all you like and avoid talking about Venus because you haven’t had a holiday there. Silent readers can see through that my friend.

        If you can’t explain how the necessary thermal energy gets into the surface of Venus and raises its temperature a little during its sunlit period, then I am years ahead of you in your understanding of planetary core and surface temperatures as explained here: http://climate-change-theory.com which no one has proved wrong.

        Meanwhile whenever you write stuff like this which is an absolute travesty of physics, in which you have no qualifications, I shall attack it.

      • Avatar

        Silent Reader

        |

        PE gain = KE loss so we get …

        [i]m*g*dH = -m*cp*dT[/i]

        [i]dT/dH = -g/cp[/i]

        Did you notice it’s [i]dH[/i]?

  • Avatar

    Silent Reader

    |

    This week the number of comments on Roy Spencer’s February data thread passed the 1,000 mark. This has probably been the most comprehensive discussion of the physics of the atmosphere that has ever been all brought together in a single climate blog thread.

    There is a summary on a new thread starting here and I recommend all should read the author’s comments in that newer thread.

    • Avatar

      Silent Reader

      |

      Sorry I don’t know how to do links here as it does not seem to be HTML code. I’ll try again …

      [url]http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/this-is-your-presidents-science-advisor/#comment-186262[/url]

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      Doug Cotton, will you not go away peacefully?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Quoting Derek Alker:

    Various things fell into place for me when reading his work, and then the name Jules G Charney appeared in 1948, and then again 1979. That however is a line I have still to look into and cross reference. I hope Oliver Manuel will be able to help me with that line of thought / investigation.

    Now you are getting to the whole modeling mess! The gas spectral absorption was noticed way back. In the late 60s, US military was very interested in what you could see yonder, in all spectral bands. If we cannot see them, they cannot see us! Most important to any General for planning with weather. This was the development of LowTran, ModTran, and the HiTran databases, that were actually field verified at obscene expense!
    This was done for atmospheric attenuation of both temporal and spatial modulation, (seeing) Attenuation of flux was never considered, as is no way to tell the difference in flux through, and flux from the intervening atmosphere. Please guess what numbers are currently used for attenuation of flux?
    —————————————
    Do not attribute to SCAM what is easily identified as incompetence!!
    ——————————-
    Gore, Hanson, Mann, Schmidt, all knew of the SCAM! I met Hanson once (69-70) at the AF Cambridge Labs near Boston! IMHO, he was an ass-hole then! 😉

  • Avatar

    Derek Alker

    |

    Thank you again Pat Obar.
    I will, to use someone’s words from a private email continue to,
    “keep up the good fight”…

    In regards of Dr Miskolczi, he is one of my heroes in the exposing of this scam. Who else has made what is modeled easy enough for others to understand? He stands head and shoulders above anyone else I am aware of in respect of exposing what is modeled.
    AND,
    If one is aware of 20th Century Hungarian history, then it should be apparent that Hansen picked on the wrong person to continue his brainwashing of the public with..
    BUT, I think he does not want crediting with such, hence I wrote as I have in regards of his work.

    Various things fell into place for me when reading his work, and then the name Jules G Charney appeared in 1948, and then again 1979. That however is a line I have still to look into and cross reference. I hope Oliver Manuel will be able to help me with that line of thought / investigation.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Derek Alker”]
      Various things fell into place for me when reading his work, and then the name Jules G Charney appeared in 1948, and then again 1979. That however is a line I have still to look into and cross reference. I hope Oliver Manuel will be able to help me with that line of thought / investigation.[/quote]

      Whoops, got trapped for wrong words!!
      ———————————–
      This is the age of computer stuff. The absorption spectra for atmospheric gases was noted long ago. Calculation of absorption in bands from 0.9 to 200 microns was done for various pressures and temperatures. In the late 60s the US military was very interested in what you can see over yonder in all spectral bands. If we cannot see them, they cannot see us either. Very,very, important for Generals planning battle in weather. This was the generation of the LowTran, ModTran, and HiTran, database/i/es. The spectral attenuation was field verified at obscene expense! All that was verified was attenuation of [b]temporal or spatial modulation (seeing)[/b]. Attenuation of radiative flux, was never attempted,as no way to distinguish flux “through” from flux “from”
      the intervening atmosphere. Guess what data is now used by [b]all modelers[/b] for atmospheric flux attenuation?
      Derek, please do not attribute to SCAM, what is easily attributed to incompetence! There is still way, way enough SCAM for each of us to identify. 🙂

      • Avatar

        Derek Alker

        |

        Pat, what was being modeled is the question. It should have been changed in the early 50s, but it was not. Modelers argued questioned laterally, vertically, even about Loschmidt, BUT the underlying “theory” was never mentioned..

        Then that, that should not of been modeled was represented, so complex, so hidden in plain sight no one knew. Untill Miskolczi unraveled it all.

        Some, indeed most were incompetent, but were all? Certainly a dead duck was resurrected for political purposes, by an ideologue, but way back when was the intention to deliberately deceive?
        To date I can not answer that question.

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          [quote name=”Derek Alker”]Pat, what was being modeled is the question. It should have been changed in the early 50s, but it was not. Modelers argued questioned laterally, vertically, even about Loschmidt, BUT the underlying “theory” was never mentioned..[/quote]

          See my 12:30 to Joel!
          Indeed all they have is a model of some incompetent modellers fantasy!

          [quote]Then that, that should not of been modeled was represented, so complex, so hidden in plain sight no one knew. Untill Miskolczi unraveled it all.[/quote]

          Indeed. The modellers still have no idea of how EMR flux fits in with all the other thermodynamic processes

          [quote] Some, indeed most were incompetent, but were all? Certainly a dead duck was resurrected for political purposes, by an ideologue, but way back when was the intention to deliberately deceive? To date I can not answer that question.[/quote]

          Yes, proving fault may be difficult. Until the fluid dynamics are known well enough to predict surface wind velocity and direction for every direction, the [b]MODELS are the SCAM[/b]! 🙂

  • Avatar

    Derek Alker

    |

    I hope my presentation debunks the energy flow version of GH “theory” too. IN THE FIRST SECOND where does the recycled energy come from, other than itself?

    I think that is a point most have missed to date. Hopefully my diagrams show how it is recycled energy within the second, and from second to second.
    This then begs the question, in the first second where did that energy come from? I am not sure anyone has put it like that before.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Derek Alker”]I hope my presentation debunks the energy flow version of GH “theory” too. IN THE FIRST SECOND where does the recycled energy come from, other than itself?

      I think that is a point most have missed to date. Hopefully my diagrams show how it is recycled energy within the second, and from second to second.
      This then begs the question, in the first second where did that energy come from? I am not sure anyone has put it like that before.[/quote]

      Derek,
      All your PDFs And PP stuff displays fine with LibreOffice on Linux.
      To answer your above question [b]devils advocate[/b] For the first second where did that energy come from the zeroth second 🙂 ,rediculous yes, but with AGW that is always true.
      Quick critique:
      Not a black body? YES
      Does have sensible heat? YES
      Not in local LTE? UMMMM, The whole atmosphere rethermalizes with a time constant of 6 minutes. This may be fast enough so minor local departures may be ignored. 🙂
      I think you gave Miskolczi a bum rap! He clearly was understanding of the difference in radiance and radiative flux! Mostly referring to radiance as potential. If you have not examined Noor van Andel’s comments of the Miskolczi work please do so! Other than those, your’s is very fine work! Perhaps some day we can discuss the measurable effects of thermal EMR in this atmosphere!
      ——————————————–
      Here is my reply to back radiation from a different blog:

      [quote]“Since the shell is extremely thin, for all practical purposes the temperature of the shell’s inner surface will be the same as the temperature of the shell’s outer surface. Since both the solid sphere’s surface and the shell’s inner surface act like blackbodies and since for all practical purposes (a) the shell’s inner surface temperature is the same as the shell’s outer surface temperature, and (b) the shell’s inner surface area is the same as the shell’s outer surface area, in ERE the rate energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface will be the same as the rate, H, energy is radiated from the shell’s outer surface.”[/quote]

      This is the part of your article that is non-supportable, and a complete fantasy. Such has never been, detected, observed, or ever measured. A complete pseudo-science fabrication. This is never proposed by Planck. This is in conflict with all Maxwell’s equations of EMR. Such a claim would violate projective geometry, and imply an infinite temperature at the centre of any hollow shell with temperature and finite internal emissivity.

      [quote]“Where did the concept of backradiation come from? In my opinion, the word backradiation comes from the following. (a) Surfaces at temperatures above 0K emit radiation.”[/quote]

      So you have been brainwashed, by incompetent academics, please get over it! 🙂 The direction of radiative flux reverses when an opposing field strength is higher at whatever frequency. This is called absorptance rather than emittance.

    • Avatar

      Joel Shore

      |

      “This then begs the question, in the first second where did that energy come from? I am not sure anyone has put it like that before.”

      The question is not relevant because usually in these discussions what one is talking about is the new steady-state condition. I.e., if one imagines, for example, an instantaneous increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, one then asks the question about what the new steady-state temperature will be once the system has reached the steady-state.

      The approach to steady-state is a different question, but in a nutshell, after said instantaneous increase, the system will not be in steady-state: It will be absorbing more radiation than it emits and, as a result (i.e., by conservation of energy), its temperature will be increasing.

      There is no law that says strictly that energy in has to equal energy out. The law is only that if energy in > energy out, then that energy has to show up somewhere, e.g., as an increase in the thermal energy (and hence temperature) of the system. And if energy in < energy out, then that decrease in energy has to show up somewhere, e.g., as a decrease in the thermal energy (and hence temperature) of the system. Since an increase in thermal energy leads to greater emission out and a decrease in thermal energy leads to less emission out, over time the system is driven to a steady-state condition where energy in = energy out, although how close it gets to that steady-state depends on the relative time scales for the processes that are causing the energy inputs or outputs to change annd the time scales for the system to "equilibrate". Right now, the Earth's climate system seems to be out of steady-state balance (by 0.5 W/m^2 or so) because of the steady increases in greenhouse gases.

      • Avatar

        Silent Reader

        |

        [b]Joel of SkS fame:[/b]

        Planetary surface temperatures are not primarily determined by the radiation that strikes them. Such plays a very minor role as explained [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url]. Try explaining temperatures and energy flows in the nominal troposphere of Uranus.

        What is the sensitivity for a 1% change in water vapor concentration? That might get you [i]thinking[/i] one day.

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        Joel:
        “Right now, the Earth’s climate system seems to be out of steady-state balance (by 0.5 W/m^2 or so) because of the steady increases in greenhouse gases.”

        Jim McGinn:
        It’s plainly silly to suggest that the Earth has a “steady-state balance” or that you have the ability to detect/measure it.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Written by Derek Alker, PSI Climate Analyst on 30 Mar 2015

    “What is the theory of man-made global warming? The short answer to that seemingly simple question is that it is a scam. The biggest, most complex, and most successful, deliberate scam so far in human history.”

    Thank you Derek, and I fully agree!
    Your analysis from a thermodynamics concept and language makes an thoughtful, enlightening read.

    The Dr. Leonard Weinstein comment:
    “Your profound misunderstanding of the Physics of the issue is obvious”.

    Only confirms that Dr.Weinstein, while claiming to be sceptical, clearly places him as part of the NASA scam, claiming “backradiation”. and truly incompetent about any electromagnetic radiation, generation or transmission.
    With this Earth’s atmosphere No EMR exit flux [b]need originate from the surface.[/b] The atmosphere with the vast power of WV latent heat, is a much better dispatch of excess energy than the surface can possibly be. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Stephen Wells

    |

    The comment above about insulation. The scam is that energy from the sun gets through this “insulation” (atmosphere) unimpeded and then heats the “surface” so it can then be trapped on its way out. In truth the surface begins at the top of our atmosphere and the planet is energised from the top down. The difference between gas, liquids and solids determining the depth required for full absorption to take place.
    Once absorbed, conduction happens from the outside to the inside. The highest energy molecules transferring engery thorough collision to molecules with lower energy. As gravity forces molecules closer together with depth we get the illusion of rising temperatures, even though, in the case of the gasses for example, the higher temperature on the ground the air molecules are of a lower energy than those at altitude.
    Energy is always being transported through the centre of the planet and out the other side. The rotation of Earth complicating this process to make it seem as if Earth’s core generated it’s own heat.

    • Avatar

      Silent Reader

      |

      “the higher temperature on the ground the air molecules are of a lower energy than those at altitude. “

      More wild garbage from our other self-taught physicist Stephen Wilde.

      Lesson 1 in Kinetic Theory:

      [b]Temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy.[/b]

    • Avatar

      Silent Reader

      |

      If anyone wants to know how the density gradient forms and stabilizes, it is all to do with the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Search “density gradient” on those two threads on Roy’s blog where my comments don’t get deleted.

    • Avatar

      Silent Reader

      |

      “the higher temperature on the ground the air molecules are of a lower energy than those at altitude. “

      More wild garbage from our other self-taught physicist Stephen Wilde.

      Lesson 1 in Kinetic Theory:

      [b]Temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy.[/b]

      If anyone wants to know how the density gradient forms and stabilizes, it is all to do with the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Search “density gradient” on those two threads on Roy’s blog where my comments don’t get deleted.

  • Avatar

    BigWaveDave

    |

    Coal and other hydrocarbon fuel store solar energy. Their use is far more efficient and environmentally friendly than using solar cells to charge batteries.

    • Avatar

      Silent Reader

      |

      [b]Hi BigWaveDave[/b].

      Glad to come in contact with you again after I have quoted your comment (at the end of Robert Brown’s garbage about the Loschmidt effect) many times. You are also quoted [url=http://www.climate-change-theory.com/WUWT.html]here[/url] in the website endorsed by our group of persons suitably qualified or knowledgeable of physics. Feel free to join the group in our fight against all Isothermalists – the email is on the [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]Home[/url] page.

  • Avatar

    Mr Pettersen

    |

    “If any form of radiation insulation” well thats it. There is no insulation!
    The amaunt of ir leaving the system is always the same no matter what co2 level we have. It doesnt matter how many times energi goes up and down in the atmosphere. Heat is the differense of what comes in and what leaves.

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Derek,
    Your profound misunderstanding of the Physics of the issue is obvious. I am a CAGW skeptic, and think the CO2 contribution to climate variation is small and overwhelmed by natural variation. However, your position is to deny the basic factors altogether with your misunderstanding of the process. I have placed detailed descriptions of the processes involved on this site before, but if you missed it see:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WPeBO_Ra9mkhWjv0J0SNmyRzHFVE9zPP8xRDUpR08jc/edit?usp=sharing

      • Avatar

        Leonard Weinstein

        |

        Squid,
        I read your suggested site, and it is as full of misinformation as the above article. If you or any of the authors are supposed to be scientists, I feel for our country. Some heating elements are fed a level of input POWER, and some a controlled level of TEMPERATURE. These are two different systems entirely. If there is insulation over a fixed power source, the temperature would surely increase until the insulation passed the correct power level. Insulating a cup of coffee with a fixed power heater would get hotter. However, there are also thermostat controlled heaters, which try to control temperature rather than power. In those cases, the power would be reduced as needed to maintain the same temperature as the set value. Those are not constant power systems. The Sun heated Earth is a constant POWER system, and thus heats up if there is any form of radiation insulation.

        • Avatar

          Silent Reader

          |

          See this and subsequent comments by the author …

          [url]http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/this-is-your-presidents-science-advisor/#comment-186262[/url]

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            Oh, the “Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still” guy … yeah, I think I’ll pass. Thank you.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Doug Cotton, will you not go away peacefully?

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          [quote]Insulating a cup of coffee with a fixed power heater would get hotter.[/quote]

          At what point will it quit getting hotter?

          You are in the same camp as those that will claim that if I set one banana next to another banana on my kitchen counter, each banana will make the other one hotter.

          ROFLMAO… My Basset Hound is smarter than that.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Squid2112″][quote]Insulating a cup of coffee with a fixed power heater would get hotter.[/quote]

            At what point will it quit getting hotter?

            You are in the same camp as those that will claim that if I set one banana next to another banana on my kitchen counter, each banana will make the other one hotter.

            ROFLMAO… My Basset Hound is smarter than that.[/quote]
            Squid the temperature must stop increasing when at the new higher temperature the heat dissipation external to the insulation equals the power supplied. the temperature increase exactly equals the temperature difference through the insulation due to the limited thermal conductivity of that insulation. with a fixed power source and a lower temperature surround (isotherm), each and every temperature is a [b]result of the required flux[/b], never a determinant of that flux. 🙂

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          [quote]The Sun heated Earth is a constant POWER system, and thus heats up if there is any form of radiation insulation.[/quote]

          So, I am told over and over again, that, without an atmosphere (your insulation) the Earth would only be an average temperature of -18C. But now you and the Greenhouse Effect believers are trying to piss down my back and tell me its raining by claiming that the atmosphere is capable of [b]manufacturing[/b] energy to raise the temperature to what it really is. And this all comes from your magical “insulation”? … do tell … You should patent this technology…

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          Heat is like a rotating bicycle wheel, where the faster the wheel is turning equals the higher the thermal temperature (and atomic vibrational state).

          In order to make that wheel turn faster, one has to apply [b]more[/b] energy to spin it faster (slapping your hand along the tire). If you slap the tire with [b]less[/b] energy than what the wheel is already spinning (lower thermal temperature) the rotation of the wheel slows (cools).

          It does [b]not[/b] matter how efficient the ball bearings are, even perfectly frictionless bearings and in a vacuum, you must apply [b]more[/b] energy to increase the speed (temperature). Slapping the tire at any energy less than the speed the wheel is already spinning, transfers energy to your hand, not to the wheel. Additionally, the faster the wheel is turning (the higher the temperature) the ever increasingly more energy it takes to increase the spin rate of the wheel.

          This is [b]exactly[/b] how the atoms work in vibrational states in terms of thermal energy. [b]Exactly how they work[/b]. There is no amount of sophistry that can get around this extremely basic and fundamental physical [b]law[/b] of our universe, and is precisely why a Perpetuum Mobile is impossible, and precisely why heat cannot pile, and precisely why a “radiative greenhouse effect” is impossible.

          This is demonstrably irrefutable and self evident.

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          [quote]I read your suggested site, and it is as full of misinformation as the above article.[/quote]
          Interesting, as I don’t see any comments from you refuting any of the discussion or the article at hand. I have given you a full week and you still haven’t responded to anything discussed and/or cited within the article or any of the discussion and debates within the comments.

          Why not? Are you just seeking easy pickin’s to make you feel good? So you come here in a trolling attempt?

          Give it your best shot … I’m game … bring it on.

      • Avatar

        Silent Reader

        |

        Thermal energy (originally from the Sun) is indeed “trapped” and “piled” in all planets and moons, right down to the cores, such as for our Moon where it’s over 1300°C. The reason why will blow your mind when you study the valid physics at [url]http://climate-change-theory.com[/url] but be assured the Moon’s core will not cool off while ever the Sun shines with current intensity. You didn’t know that, did you?

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          [b]FALSE[/b], thermal energy cannot be “piled” .. violation of physical law. If you were a “physicist”, you would know this.

    • Avatar

      carlallen

      |

      [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]
      your position is to deny the basic factors altogether with your misunderstanding of the process. I have placed detailed descriptions of the processes involved on this site . . [/quote]

      I went to the web site listed and read through your paper and the last paragraph sums up one particular version of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis—the version that is present in the IPCC’s AR4. You wrote, [i]“For planets with enough atmosphere, the lapse rate defines the lower atmosphere temperature gradient, and if the lapse rate is not changed, the distance the location of outgoing radiation is moved up by addition of absorbing gases determines the increase in temperature effect.”[/i]

      This is what the IPCC wrote, [i]“In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect.”[/i]

      The problem with this version of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is that it makes several assumptions that are out of sync with reality.

      1) It assumes that the addition of “greenhouse gases” does not change the lapse rate.

      2) It assumes that the outgoing longwave radiation (OLWR) that cools the Earth, which is detected at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) by satellites in orbit, originates from a discrete altitude where the air is -19 °C. According to the International Standard Atmosphere that altitude is ~5 km. Ergo, it is both your and the IPCC’s thesis that the ~240 W/m^2 of OLWR at the TOA that is cooling the planet and keeping the Earth’s energy in balance with absorbed solar energy is being emitted by the air present at ~5 km in altitude.

      3) The addition of “greenhouse gases” to the atmosphere raises the altitude from which the OLWR at the TOA is emitted.

      Let’s take these three assumptions one at a time. First, do “greenhouse gases” change the lapse rate? Of course they do, especially water vapor “the most powerful greenhouse gas”. You said so yourself in your own paper, but then you turn around at the end of the paper and make the “greenhouse effect” dependent upon a [b]non-changing[/b] lapse rate! Your thesis, in essence, is this. If “greenhouse gases” didn’t change the lapse rate then they would cause ground level temperatures to rise.

      Second, does the air at ~5km emit the ~240 W/m^2 of OLWR that is detected at the TOA? It can’t unless the emissivity of the air at that altitude was 1.0 and that 5 km was itself the TOA. Since neither of these conditions exists then this thesis is false. Let’s dig deeper.

      (to be continued in the next post)

    • Avatar

      carlallen

      |

      [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]
      your position is to deny the basic factors altogether with your misunderstanding of the process. I have placed detailed descriptions of the processes involved on this site . . . [/quote]

      (continued from last post)

      Even as the transmissivity of the air increases with altitude it’s emissivity decreases. By ~5 km in altitude, for example, because the air has lost most of it water vapor (which boosts the air emissivity) plus its density has decreased to roughly half of it sea level density its emissivity is down to around 0.4. At -19 °C such air is only emitting about 95 W/m^2 of IR radiation in the first place, which is hardly enough to cool the planet. To make matters worse there is still down-welling IR radiation from the air above that altitude. Considering that the air at 5.5 km in altitude is emitting ~86 W/m^2 of IR radiation, the net up-going radiation heat loss from the air at 5 km in altitude is only ~9 W/m^2. After you digest these real world numbers I hope that you will agree that the notion that the Earth is cooling via the IR radiation that is being emitted by the air at 5 km in altitude where its temperature is -19 °C is completely absurd.

      Let’s look at the third postulate of your thesis. Does the addition of “greenhouse gases” cause the origin of the OLWR at the TOA to move higher in altitude? Think it through. “Greenhouse gases” increase the opacity of the atmosphere because they increase the emissivity of the air. For example, at the same temperature humid air emits more IR radiation than does dry air because its emissivity is higher. At sea-level at 15 °C dry air is emitting some 254 W/m^2 of IR radiation while wet air can emit as much as 337 W/m^2 of IR radiation. Thus, at the same temperature the wet air is emitting ~83 W/m^2 more energy upwards towards space, which increases the up-going net radiation heat loss from the lower atmosphere. As a consequence the addition of these IR emitting gases causes a downward shift in the location from which the air emits IR radiation out into space, not an upward shift. This, of course, is under clear skies, because clouds (which are not “greenhouse gases”) have their own unique affect on the temperature of sea-level air. They also cool the lower atmosphere but by different mechanisms.

      Carl

      • Avatar

        Joel Shore

        |

        Carl:

        Taking each of your objections in turn:

        (1) This is not an assumption; it is a first approximation. To the first approximation, the lapse rate does not change as greenhouse gases increase because this lapse rate is limited by convection and thus the adiabatic lapse rate. To a better approximation, it does change a little bit because, while the adiabatic lapse rate for dry air is independent of temperature, the adiabatic lapse rate for saturated air is a decreasing function of the temperature. This effect of a changing lapse rate is called the “lapse rate feedback,” a negative feedback present in all of the climate models, i.e., any place where serious quantitative modeling of the effect is done. It is common in science to talk about things and perform calculations to various levels of approximation depending on the quantitative details or accuracy needed in the present discussion.

        (2) Again, this is not an assumption; it is a simplification made of replacing a complicated process by a simpler one for the purposes of qualitative discussion. When it is necessary to consider quantitatively how radiation passes through the atmosphere, then the more detailed equations that describe this are used. When one wants to discuss the basic picture that emerges from these calculations, it is useful to imagine that the radiation that escapes to space emerges from one level. It is often called the “effective radiating level” or something of that sort, with the word “effective” denoting the fact that it is a simplified picture of a more complicated process.

        (3) On this last issue, you simply have various confusions that lead you to erroneous conclusions. First, it doesn’t really make sense to talk of an emissivity (or absorptivity) of something transparent like air without specifying the thickness of air that one is talking about. Second, and more importantly, in limiting the discussion to emission, you are missing half of what is going on: The role of greenhouse gases is to absorb and emit radiation. So, yes, when you have more greenhouse gases you get more emission but you also get more absorption. The net effect, worked out by actually doing radiative transfer calculations using the full equations rather than just guessing, is that an increase in greenhouse gases raises the average level at which the radiation that successfully escapes to space is emitted from.

        • Avatar

          Silent Reader

          |

          Then Joel Shore, see this which refutes all you say, and also see the subsequent comments by the author …

          [url]http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/this-is-your-presidents-science-advisor/#comment-186262[/url]

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            The nonsensical ramblings of Doug Cotton don’t refute anything.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Doug Cotton, will you not go away peacefully?

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Carl:

          Taking each of your objections in turn:[/quote]

          (1)Joel, You cannot demonstrate any “lapse rate feedback,” only a fantasy present in all of the climate models.

          (2)Joel, You cannot demonstrate any “effective radiating level” or something of that sort, as all atmospheric energy transfer is only away from the surface at every level, for every means of energy transport. “Effective radiating level”, is but a fantasy phrase invented by some incompetent modeller.

          (3) On this last issue, Joel,you simply have various confusions that lead you to erroneous conclusions. You are missing half of what is going on, You cannot demonstrate any absorption of of electromagnetic energy of any gas when that gas is at or above the temperature needed for radiative equilibrium as per Gus Kirchhoff.
          All levels of the atmosphere are above this temperature as all levels receive or generate sensible heat above that radiating from below.
          All levels of the atmosphere radiate EMR flux to space with that outward flux accumulating all the way to 220 km, as per F. Miskolczi!

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            It is not worth my time to argue with someone who wants to deny 20th century physics. If your understanding of physics has not advanced beyond the 19th century, then there is not much I can do to help you. (Although I will mention that even 19th century physicists were able to understand the basics of the greenhouse effect, so in fact it is somewhat unfair to them to say you are stuck in the 19th century…You also have to misinterpret 19th century physics to deny the atmospheric greenhouse effect.)

          • Avatar

            Silent Reader

            |

            Joel

            There have been major advances since the 20th century in understanding of thermodynamics and entropy maximization, and also radiative heat transfer, putting to rest the old 20th century paradigm of radiation from the Sun and atmosphere supposedly warming every planetary surface.

            You should catch up in your reading [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url] because, whether or not it suits your agenda of promulgating the hoax, what is explained therein is correct because it works, and works for all planets and moons.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]It is not worth my time to argue with someone who wants to deny 20th century physics. [/quote]

            In what way have I denied anything?
            I have only stated that you, Joel Shore, cannot demonstrate that which you claim, Please demonstrate or cease claiming.

            (1)Joel, You cannot demonstrate any “lapse rate feedback,” only a fantasy!

            (2)Joel, You cannot demonstrate any “effective radiating level” or something of that sort, as all atmospheric energy transfer is only away from the surface at every level!

            (3)Joel, You cannot demonstrate any absorption of of electromagnetic energy of any gas when that gas is at or above the temperature needed for radiative equilibrium as per Gus Kirchhoff.

            In what way is the time of an incompetent academic lecturer, who cannot demonstrate, worth anything? 😛

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            (1)Joel, You cannot demonstrate any “lapse rate feedback,” only a fantasy!
            [/quote]
            You are both confused on this issue. Them mechanism that causes the air in the troposphere to be mixed has nothing to do with convection. That is a meteorological fantasy. Storms (which have nothing to do with convection) are what causes the mixing that causes the reduction in the temperature gradient (what you call lapse rate). (Note: moist air is heavier, not lighter, than dry air. So the concept of moist air convection is superstition, not science.)
            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            (2)Joel, You cannot demonstrate any “effective radiating level” or something of that sort, as all atmospheric energy transfer is only away from the surface at every level![/quote]
            You will never learn, Pat. Radiation never travels one direction. NEVER! It *always* travels in all directions simultaneously. This is a simple concept to grasp, Pat. Why you and Postma keep putting your foot in your mouth on this simple concept is just strange.[quote name=”Pat Obar”](3)Joel, You cannot demonstrate any absorption of of electromagnetic energy of any gas when that gas is at or above the temperature needed for radiative equilibrium as per Gus Kirchhoff.[/quote]
            Well, that’s true, but irrelevant. Yes, one cannot DEMONSTRATE such. But that is because THE INSTRUMENTS ONLY MEASURE NET RADIATIVE TRANSFER.

            How many times does this have to be pointed out to you, Pat, before it sinks in?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            (2)Joel, You cannot demonstrate any “effective radiating level” or something of that sort, as all atmospheric energy transfer is only away from the surface at every level![/quote]

            name=”Jim McGinn” You will never learn, Pat. Radiation never travels one direction. NEVER! It *always* travels in all directions simultaneously. This is a simple concept to grasp, Pat. Why you and Postma keep putting your foot in your mouth on this simple concept is just strange.[/quote]

            Jim, All that is needed is [b]one repeatable example[/b] of what you claim.

            [quote][quote name=”Pat Obar”](3)Joel, You cannot demonstrate any absorption of of electromagnetic energy of any gas when that gas is at or above the temperature needed for radiative equilibrium as per Gus Kirchhoff.[/quote]
            name=”Jim McGinn” Well, that’s true, but irrelevant. Yes, one cannot DEMONSTRATE such. But that is because THE INSTRUMENTS ONLY MEASURE NET RADIATIVE TRANSFER.[/quote]

            Jim, All that is needed is [b]one repeatable example[/b] of your claimed nonsense. What is easily demonstrable, for any mass at equilibrium, with the use of two flux-meters, is that power [b]toward[/b] from higher temperature, exactly equals power [b]away[/b] to lower temperature. There is no accumulation of power (heat) in that mass, hence no absorption of energy.

            Jim, How many times does this have to be pointed out to you,before it sinks in?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Pat Obar:
            What is easily demonstrable, for any mass at equilibrium, with the use of two flux-meters, is that power toward from higher temperature, exactly equals power away to lower temperature. There is no accumulation of power (heat) in that mass, hence no absorption of energy.

            Jim McGinn:
            I think it would be more entertaining if you were to take the time to explain to us how the colder object knows its the colder object and, somehow, turns off its radiation. Are you suggesting the object achieves absolute zero temperature? Because if not you will also have to confront the known fact that all matter that is not at absolute zero emits EMR at all times in all directions.

            Good luck with that.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Quoting solvingtornadoes:

            Pat Obar:
            What is easily demonstrable, for any mass at equilibrium, with the use of two flux-meters, is that power toward from higher temperature, exactly equals power away to lower temperature. There is no accumulation of power (heat) in that mass, hence no absorption of energy.

            Jim McGinn:
            I think it would be more entertaining if you were to take the time to explain to us how the colder object knows its the colder object and, somehow, turns off its radiation. Are you suggesting the object achieves absolute zero temperature? Because if not you will also have to confront the known fact that all matter that is not at absolute zero emits EMR at all times in all directions.
            Good luck with that.

            Jim, There is no knowledge required. It is only the opposing radiance with no flux required. Like a stump between to masses, (opposing force), no acceleration of mass is allowed. With equal opposing radiance (temperature), no power transfer is allowed.
            All of this has been carefully measured. Aw shits abound! If you wish to pick on any aw shit, re-measurement must show that your claims are nonsense. 🙂

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Pat Obar:
            What is easily demonstrable, for any mass at equilibrium, with the use of two flux-meters, is that power toward from higher temperature, exactly equals power away to lower temperature. There is no accumulation of power (heat) in that mass, hence no absorption of energy.

            Jim McGinn:
            I think it would be more entertaining if you were to take the time to explain to us how the colder object knows its the colder object and, somehow, turns off its radiation. Are you suggesting the object achieves absolute zero temperature? Because if not you will also have to confront the known fact that all matter that is not at absolute zero emits EMR at all times in all directions.

            Good luck with that.[/quote]

            Jim, there is no knowledge required. Like a large post between masses equal opposing force there is no acceleration of mass. (power transfer). At equal temperature there is no potential difference for any sort of power transfer. An apple, in orbit, with no potential differential gravitational force never falls.
            Temperature itself never defines some power transfer. 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Pat:
            An apple, in orbit, with no potential differential gravitational force never falls.

            Jim:
            I agree. But that doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist, which is what you are claiming.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Pat:
            An apple, in orbit, with no potential differential gravitational force never falls.

            Jim:
            I agree. But that doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist, which is what you are claiming.[/quote]

            At equal temperature, opposing [b]radiances[/b] are equal. With no potential [b]differential radiance[/b] (force) no electromagnetic flux is generated. :-*

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Which is irrelevant. Read the thread again.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Pat,

            Perhaps part of the problem is that you are not familiar with any microscopic theories. Is it your position that in a wire with no potential difference applied, the electrons just sit there and don’t move? When there is a potential difference across the wire, do you think that all the electrons are traveling in the direction from the lower potential to the higher potential?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Well, you know how it is. When your only tool is a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail. I see the same attitude in meteorologists. They lack a microscopic understanding of reality. They tend to view non-windy air as devoid of energy. In reality air molecules are moving at 900 mph. There is a tremendous amount of energy in non-windy air. Since they can’t (or won’t) grasp this notion there is no chance they are going to be able to make the realization that this energy is the source of the energy in jet streams which themselves are the source of the energy that produces winds and storms.

            I think all scientific paradigms have this tendency to trap their adherents into believing that they got it all figured out and they, therefore, no longer have to think and reason. But it seems especially bad amongst those that have had thermodynamic education, ie. Obar, Postma, and Cotton–not that they aren’t proficient in their specialty (or two out of three, maybe).

            I honestly don’t know the answer to your two questions. I don’t know if the electrons just sit or are constantly moving when there is no potential. And I don’t know which way the electrons are moving. Funny.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Quoting solvingtornadoes:

            They tend to view non-windy air as devoid of energy. In reality air molecules are moving at 900 mph. There is a tremendous amount of energy in non-windy air. Since they can’t (or won’t) grasp this notion there is no chance they are going to be able to make the realization that this energy is the source of the energy in jet streams which themselves are the source of the energy that produces winds and storms.

            Actually at the equator surface 1000 MPH. Atmosphere with poor power coupling, much less mass velocity all the way to zero mass velocity at 220 km. No earthling, nor any group of earthlings, has any clue as to the fluid dynamics, of such obvious is.

            Quote:

            I think all scientific paradigms have this tendency to trap their adherents into believing that they got it all figured out and they, therefore, no longer have to think and reason.

            I agree!

            Quote:

            But it seems especially bad amongst those that have had thermodynamic education, ie. Obar, Postma, McGinn, and Cotton–not that they aren’t proficient in their specialty (or two out of three, maybe).

            I got my my thermodynamics the hard way. With any conflict between electrodynamics and thermodynamics. Thermodynamics have large hooves to stomp the shit out of any electrodynamics. 😉 😉

            Quote:

            I honestly don’t know the answer to your two questions. I don’t know if the electrons just sit or are constantly moving when there is no potential. And I don’t know which way the electrons are moving. Funny.

            Nor does anyone else, Jim!! Joel Shore only tries to baffle with BS. No science is involved.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Wait a minute. Of course I know they are constantly moving, circling the atom. Nevermind on that.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Wait a minute. Of course I know they are constantly moving, circling the atom. Nevermind on that.[/quote]

            Why nevermind on that? The cyclic IS the entire IS!!

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            solving:

            I was actually talking about the free (or “conduction”) electrons in the metal. So, they are not bound to an atom. However, they are moving…and, in fact, are moving at a typical thermal velocity. Thermal velocities for electrons are on the order of 10^5 m/s at room temperature. By contrast, if you look at the current in a metal, and compute the average velocity of the free electrons that produce a typical current in a wire (e.g., on the order of Amps), it is on the order of maybe 10^-4 or 10^-5 m/s, so about a billion times smaller.

            So, the picture that emerges is of electrons whizzing around very rapidly in all different directions in the wire, but with a VERY slight bias in the direction opposite to the electric field (i.e., toward higher potential).

            This is in contrast to the picture that I imagine Pat has in his head, at least as evidence by the fact that he is always trying to compare radiative heat flow from hotter to colder as the equivalent of the flow of electrical current when there is a potential difference.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Fake fizzix lecturer Joel Shore presents, here three gross examples of the extent that Lukewarmers will go to to promote this CAGW religion. These examples truly demonstrate the extent of the SCAM that has been so carefully presented by Derek Alker in this thread.

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]2015-04-06 22:45

            solving: I was actually talking about the free (or “conduction”) electrons in the metal. So, they are not bound to an atom. However, they are moving…and, in fact, are moving at a typical thermal velocity. [/quote]
            What complete nonsense! Fake fizzix lecturer Joel Shore claims valence electrons “are not bound to an atom”. He intentionally distorts that valence electrons are bound by all atomic nuclei and are only free when an electric field is present allowing external electrons to provide a directional flux.

            [quote]Thermal velocities for electrons are on the order of 10^5 m/s at room temperature. By contrast, if you look at the current in a metal, and compute the average velocity of the free electrons that produce a typical current in a wire (e.g., on the order of Amps), it is on the order of maybe 10^-4 or 10^-5 m/s, so about a billion times smaller. [/quote]
            Again complete nonsense from Fake fizzix lecturer Joel Shore. Thermal velocities of metalic valence electrons have never ever been, nor can be determined. All is fantasy by Joel. Joel insists on the microscopic statistical but can never give example of his fantasy.

            [quote] So, the picture that emerges is of electrons whizzing around very rapidly in all different directions in the wire, but with a VERY slight bias in the direction opposite to the electric field (i.e., toward higher potential).[/quote]
            Spontaneous can only be in a direction toward [s]higher[/s] lower potential

            [quote] This is in contrast to the picture that I imagine Pat has in his head, at least as evidence by the fact that he is always trying to compare radiative heat flow from hotter to colder as the equivalent of the flow of electrical current when there is a potential difference.[/quote]
            Fake fizzix lecturer Joel Shore is free to have any imagined picture. Pat Obar has never compared radiative heat flow from hotter to colder as the equivalent of the flow of electrical current when there is a potential difference. Thermal electromagnetic radiative flux has nothing to do with “heat”.
            The absorber of EM flux decides any energy conversion. On this planet more than half solar electromagnetic flux absorbed is converted to chemical energy never the claimed sensible heat involving the claimed temperature.
            Lecturers Joel Shore, Tim Folkerts, and RGB at Duke are true examples of the intentional SCAM.

            Perhaps more if I get undronk! 🙂

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Pat,

            (1) It gets very boring very quickly arguing with people who deny all physics that doesn’t suit their fancy.

            (2) Electrons are negatively charged and hence the electrical force on them is toward higher potential.

            (3) Perhaps you should learn something from the fact that 3 people with diverse views on the seriousness of AGW, and who are likely the only 3 people with an advanced training in physics that you interact with, all try to tell you that you are spouting clueless nonsense. But I am sure that you won’t.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Pat,
            Perhaps part of the problem is that you are not familiar with any microscopic theories.[/quote]

            I am quite familiar with ([i]your not even fantasy[/i]) conjecture, never demonstrated, of particles or crystalline structure having motion but, no momentum, due to and a function of temperature. In your fantasy you then attempt to ascribe such to electromagnetic radiation that has no mass and no particles.

            “In the case of fluxes, we have to take the integral, over a surface, of the flux through every element of the surface. The result of this operation is called the surface integral of the flux. It represents the quantity which passes through the surface.)
            —James Clerk Maxwell-

            [quote] Is it your position that in a wire with no potential difference applied, the electrons just sit there and don’t move? [/quote]

            With a wire wound resistor the contained electrical thermal power equals kT/s (noise). With zero voltage difference (potential)there is by definition zero current (flux). Perhaps one must be a physics lecturer before that one [b]cannot distinguish[/b] between potential and flux.

            [/quote]When there is a potential difference across the wire, do you think that all the electrons are travelling in the direction from the lower potential to the higher potential?[/quote]

            Like any arrogant academic, truly backwards!! [b]By 2LTD, spontaneous only may occur in a direction of lower, never higher, potential. [/b] In the case of AC, (noise), current can be at any phase with respect to voltage. Only that current in phase with voltage can produce a power flux (with direction) all else is reactive with no power transfer. By definition [b]flux is always a vector[/b], thus can have at most one direction. Do the integral, get both magnitude and direction.
            Joel, You are no longer in a mechanical world. You could at least [b]try to understand[/b] “electromagnetic field theory for dummies”. It is the outlandishly sloppy use of scientific language by academics, with no comprehension of power without mass, that created this whole fantasy-theory-of-man-made-global-warming. What you claim is but green unicorns!! Never observed, never to be observed. 🙂

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Pat, I can’t make heads-or-tails out of most of what you wrote. See my response to solvingtornadoes above for a discussion of the motion of electrons in a wire with a potential difference across it.

            As for your claim that flux is a vector, unfortunately as the Wikipedia article on flux points out, the term is used somewhat ambiguously (e.g., so that the Poynting vector or the current density themselves, which are vectors, are sometimes called fluxes). However, in the most accepted definition of flux, as in electric flux, magnetic flux, or current (which is really a “current density flux), it is not in fact a vector: If you take the dot product of two vectors (e.g., the current density and the area vector), you get a scalar. The scalar can be positive or negative and sometimes that sign is used to define, e.g., a sense for the current. However, any introductory physics textbook will emphasize that current is not in fact a vector…a fact that is abundantly clear from the mathematical definition.

            But anyway, the most important point is this: Whether talking about current or about radiant heat, the net flow from high to low potential or from hot to cold is, on a microscopic level, the result of movement of the elementary particles (electrons, photons) in both directions.

            You like to invoke the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics but you apparently have not the slightest understanding of the modern understanding of the 2nd Law in terms of statistical physics and how the irreversible behavior it implies on the macroscopic scale emerges from reversible behavior on the microscopic scale. Hence, you try to apply a law describing macroscopic behavior to microscopic processes and make a real mess of the physics.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [
            [quote name=”Joel Shore”] 2015-04-06 23:04
            Pat, I can’t make heads-or-tails out of most of what you,wrote [/quote]
            Typical for an illiterate cone-head academic lecturer.

            [quote]As for your claim that flux is a vector, unfortunately as the Wikipedia article on flux points out, the term is used somewhat ambiguously (e.g., so that the Poynting vector or the current density themselves, which are vectors, are sometimes called fluxes). However, in the most accepted definition of flux, as in electric flux, magnetic flux, or current (which is really a “current density flux), it is not in fact a vector: If you take the dot product of two vectors (e.g., the current density and the area vector), you get a scalar. The scalar can be positive or negative and sometimes that sign is used to define, e.g., a sense for the current. However, any introductory physics textbook will emphasize that current is not in fact a vector…a fact that is abundantly clear from the mathematical definition.

            I have no response to your inane comments about electrical current, something that you obviously have no concept thereof.

            [quote] But anyway, the most important point is this: Whether talking about current or about radiant heat, the net flow from high to low potential or from hot to cold is, on a microscopic level, the result of movement of the elementary particles (electrons, photons) in both directions.[/quote]

            What total nonsense! There only one possible spontaneous flux, always proportional to some difference in potential,always in the direction of lower potential, nothing else has ever been discovered.

            [quote] You like to invoke the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics but you apparently have not the slightest understanding of the modern understanding of the 2nd Law in terms of statistical physics and how the irreversible behavior it implies on the macroscopic scale emerges from reversible behavior on the microscopic scale. Hence, you try to apply a law describing macroscopic behavior to microscopic processes and make a real mess of the physics.[/quote]

            I have no interest in your abject stupidity. Rudy Clausius carefully observed spontaneous and when such occurs. There is no mention of your stupid entropy that must increase

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            And, I should add that this is all irrelevant anyway. The greenhouse effect emerges from the equations whether or not you interpret those equations to mean that there is radiation going in both directions. It is simply a result of the fact that the net heat flow between a warmer object and a colder object depends on the temperature of the colder object in addition to the temperature of the warmer object.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Joel,

            It seems very clear to me here that you are essentially asserting/confirming that the “greenhouse effect” is an artificial label that has just been pasted on a process that is already known/understood. That is, plainly, a propaganda tactic that, IMO, should have no place in science.

            Why would you (or anybody) do as such? The answer is pretty clear. Because if you don’t do that the drama disappears. These kind of propaganda tactics have no place in a scientific discussion, IMO.

            Another phrase that you should strike from your terminological toolset is the term backradiation. It’s just radiation. Radiation moves in all directions simultaneously. The (possibly inadvertent) assertion that radiation that comes back is somehow different or in addition to net radiation is itself just another propaganda tactic.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            solvingtornadoes:

            I don’t see why giving something a simple name is “a propaganda tactic”. It is something that is done in science all the time. “The greenhouse effect” is a descriptive term to summarize the process…and it notes the analogy to a greenhouse (although that analogy is imperfect, as all analogies are). It may not even be the best name, but it is the one that has stuck for better or worse.

            When you say using the term “backradiation” is a propaganda tactic, I wonder by which side you even mean. It seems to me that, while I am not sure about the original origins, it is now used mainly by those who want to deny the greenhouse effect in order to make it sound like it is somehow different than the usual way of thinking about radiation. At any rate, it is another descriptive, but imperfect term.

            I don’t really think it is worth getting all hot and bothered by the terms people use to summarize some process.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Other than deception what purpose could you possibly have for labeling something anything other than what it is?

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            So, each time that I want to refer to “the greenhouse effect”, I have to expound on a 1000 word explanation describing it in full detail? That’s why we put labels on things…In order to make discourse on a subject manageable!

            Here is a list of effects in various fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_effects So, I imagine you will argue that the name “accordion effect”, for example, is a result of purposeful deception on the part of the accordion industry? Get real!

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]So, each time that I want to refer to “the greenhouse effect”, I have to expound on a 1000 word explanation describing it in full detail? That’s why we put labels on things…In order to make discourse on a subject manageable!

            Here is a list of effects in various fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_effects So, I imagine you will argue that the name “accordion effect”, for example, is a result of purposeful deception on the part of the accordion industry? Get real![/quote]

            Joel, Stop referring to the non-existent “greenhouse effect” please. Not you nor anyone else, has evidence of such fantasy, even in the real that must accept all physical and all possible fantasy. What you claim is simply ignorance!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            So, let me get this straight. You are saying that every time you use the phrase “greenhouse effect” it is, in actuality, a stand-in for 1000 words that are not vetted, that are not subject to scrutiny, and that the validity of which your audience has not choice (or opportunity) to dispute/contest?

            Is this what you are saying/admitting?

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Not…I am using it to stand-in for something that is well-understood by scientists and people can read about to their heart’s content by typing “greenhouse effect” into a search engine.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            To me it seems incredibly vague, and inconcise. What is your basis for believing that it is well understood by all? Or even that everybody had similar conceptualizations of it?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]To me it seems incredibly vague, and inconcise. What is your basis for believing that it is well understood by all? Or even that everybody had similar conceptualizations of it?[/quote]

            +1 or perhaps even two 🙂

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            It is well understood by all scientists in the field, including ones like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer who vociferously dispute any aspect of AGW that is not absolutely incontrovertably correct.

            The fact that it is disputed in this one tiny corner of the internet doesn’t say anything more than that you can find websites where they claim the Earth is only 6000 years old too.

            And, if you don’t understand it, you can ask or read about it. You can’t expect the rest of the world to jump through linguistic hoops for you.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]It is well understood by all scientists in the field, including ones like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer who vociferously dispute any aspect of AGW that is not absolutely incontrovertibly correct.[/quote]

            Just what is “it”? What part of your AGW scan do you claim to be incontrovertible? You have not even one point that can be demonstrated. All is fantasy, no science whatsoever.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
            What is your basis for believing that it is well understood by all? Or even that everybody had similar conceptualizations of it?[/quote]
            I’ve been dealing with global warming groupies and Meteorologists long enough to know that Joel would not answer these questions and instead would continue making the same brain-dead claim. It’s the same brain-dead reasoning that we see in Meteorologists where they pretend that “everybody understands this.” Try it sometime. Ask a Meteorologists why they believe moist air is lighter than dry air and/or why they believe storms are powered by convection. They have no concept that this is a question that requires empirical evidence. Instead they will tell you, “everybody understands this.”

            http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

            Anybody that thinks atmospheric stupidity is limited to warmers has never studies meteorology.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            This site is certainly populated by a lot ofbrilliant people. They know more meteorology than meteorologists and more physics than physicists. It must be nice to be so brilliant that with so little training you can see things that have failed us lesser minds.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            There are two types of people in the sciences. Those that believe what other people tell them and scientists.

            So, Joel, do you believe in cold steam?
            http://wp.me/p4JijN-81

            Pat does. And so does every other member of PSI.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]There are two types of people in the sciences. Those that believe what other people tell them and scientists.

            So, Joel, do you believe in cold steam?
            http://wp.me/p4JijN-81

            Pat does. And so does every other member of PSI.[/quote]

            What crap, I do not believe, I only measure, then disbelieve my measurement.. Introducing H2O liquid, At 30 Celsius temperature water into a previously evacuated volume, must result in an absolute pressure of 31.8 mm of mercury in this surface gravitational field. Only at 100 Celsius temperature will that pressure increase to 760 mm of mercury or Earth surface pressure. I have no argument that dense liquid water exists in all parts of this atmosphere. Without the extreme viscosity of atmosphere at lower altitudes, neither birds, bees, nor aircraft, could possibly fly. 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Jim:
            Well then I’m pleasantly surprised. Or, at least, I think I am. (Maybe you should be in politics, Pat. It seems like you agree with me. But I am really not sure. )
            Pat:
            Only at 100 Celsius temperature will that pressure increase to 760 mm of mercury or Earth surface pressure. I have no argument that dense liquid water exists in all parts of this atmosphere.
            Jim:
            By the way, the boiling point of water is complicated by the fact that the atmospheric pressure effects/determined the boiling point and this is even further complicated when dealing with a sealed container since being sealed effects/determines the pressure. But I know what you mean.
            See this chart for more details:
            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-point-water-d_926.html
            Jim:
            I hope you realize that this means you can never be a meteorologist. You see, meteorologists believe the moisture in moist air is steam because if they didn’t believe that then they couldn’t continue to tell the public that storms are caused by (powered by) moist-air convection. And they’d have no way of explaining how heavier moist air gets so high in the atmosphere. And that would suggest that they’d have to starting looking for insight from other disciplines–like physics and chemistry. And they’d have to abandon hundreds of years worth of literature. They might even be forced to do an experiment? The horror!

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Pat: “Only at 100 Celsius temperature will that pressure increase to 760 mm of mercury or Earth surface pressure.’

            OK I am Pat, you are Jim. Indeed, in this atmosphere of compressible gas mixture, under the force of gravity, no earthling can ever decide if pressure yields temperature, or if temperature yields pressure, This is intentional, so that no top Earth predator can ever understand what is!!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Uh, the point is that in a sealed container the boiling point will be over 100. This is due to the fact that the boiling point is higher with increased temperature.

            Don’t get bent out of shape on a minor point.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            I meant to say, ” . . . he boiling point is higher with increased PRESSURE.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            By the way, it seems to me that the fact that moist air has a lower density than dry air is a simple matter of the ideal gas law and the fact that H2O has a lower molecular mass than O2 or N2. It seems pretty hard to argue against such basic science.

            I also think you are overstating the effect to which this plays a role in convection. From what I can determine, the greater instability of moist air may have more to do with the release of latent heat in a rising parcel of moist air that counteracts some of the adiabatic cooling that would otherwise occur more than it has to do with any difference in density arising from the difference in composition, although I’d need to research it more to be confident of that.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            When dealing with the weight of volumes of air the particle weight is what is relevant, not the molecular weight. The particle weight for steam is 18. The particle weight of vapor is 18 x X (X being the number of molecules in the cluster/droplet). Moist air is heavier.

            Instability has nothing to do with vague concepts like latent heat.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            After I wrote my response, I did see that you don’t believe in water vapor…or at least water vapor below boiling, but believe in clusters of water molecules instead, so I now see why you claim moist air is heavier. But I have the following comments on your ideas and your bizarre statement about latent heat:

            (1)Latent heat is not some vague concept. It is an extremely important contributor to heat transfer in the atmosphere. Cooling by evaporation and warming when water recondenses is well-documented and it influences all sorts of things such as the lapse rate at which the atmosphere becomes unstable to convection.

            (2) Your “theory” is nothihg more than a zany hypothesis until you show, for example that you can use it to make better meteorological predictions. So, can you do a better job forecasting thunderstorm development than the current forecast models using the accepted atmospheric physics that you are challenging. How about lake effect snows, a very important mesoscale event here in Upstate New York? How do you explain it and can you do a better job forecasting the placement and intensity of the lake effect band that dumped several feet of snow on parts of the Buffalo area the week before Thanksgiving last year? Good luck! You seem to have very little idea of the huge edifice of successful prediction that the current model of the atmosphere that you are challenging has shown.

            (3) Do you believe in hot steam, i.e., water vapor above the boiling point? Now let’s suppose that I put a bowl of water in a vacuum chamber and pump it down until boiling occurs at room temperature…Does that result in traditional water vapor?

            (4) Is water unique in the aspects you claim. E.g., do other substances like mercury exist in a vapor form below their boiling point?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”] . . . you don’t believe in water vapor…or at least water vapor below boiling, but believe in clusters of water molecules instead,
            [/quote]
            Water vapor involves H2O in the liquid phase, droplets/clusters suspended in air (by electrostatic forces). It is not a gas (steam). H2O *only* becomes a gas above its boiling point, which at 1ATM is 100 degrees Celcius, much hotter than the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is much too cool to support steam.
            [quote name=”Joel Shore”] so I now see why you claim moist air is heavier.
            (1)Latent heat is not some vague concept. It is an extremely important . . .
            [/quote]
            It’s comical how easy it is for you to pretend to understand something you do not. You are a typical science groupy.
            You need to get your terminology right. Evaporation and condensation are not phase transitions. Water, liquid water, is good at both absorbing and spreading energy. But so what. There is very little drama in all of this. More importantly, there is no where near enough energy to power a thunderstorm. (The energy of thunderstorms and tornadoes comes from jet streams.)
            The term latent refers to energy that becomes available AFfTER OR DURING A PHASE TRANSITION. Evaporation and condensation are not phase transitions. Evaporation and condensation are not phase transitions. Evaporation and condensation are not phase transitions. Evaporation and condensation are not phase transitions. Evaporation and condensation are not phase transitions.
            [quote name=”Joel Shore”] (2) Your “theory” is nothihg more than a zany hypothesis
            [/quote]
            I think you are a clueless pretender that doesn’t grasp the importance of being concise and explicit–just like all meteorologists. The meteorological argument falls to pieces without the inclusion of cold steam. But you will never get them to admit it because, like climatologists, meteorologists have a strong taboo against discussing theory publicly. They don’t answer questions and they certainly don’t debate. They pretend to understand what they do not and they have had the public fooled for so long that even people that are skeptical of AGW would not think of questioning/doubting a meteorologist.
            [quote name=”Joel Shore”] (3) Do you believe in hot steam, i.e., water vapor above the boiling point? Now let’s suppose that I put a bowl of water in a vacuum chamber and pump it down until boiling occurs at room temperature…Does that result in traditional water vapor?
            [/quote]
            If it boils it involves steam. You obviously don’t have a point.
            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]
            (4) Is water unique in the aspects you claim. E.g., do other substances like mercury exist in a vapor form below their boiling point?[/quote]
            [/quote]
            I don’t see why not.

            Meteorology has been much more successful at conning the public than climatology will ever be. Climatology has managed to get one segment of society to do their bidding for them. Meteorology doesn’t even have to worry about that, all segments of society do their bidding for them.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Your claims are clearly ludicrous. People measure heats of vaporization of water, and not just at 100 C. Our human body relies on evaporation for cooling, as does the panting mechanism used by dogs.

            Your statements are not even consistent. On the one hand, you claim that it is too cold for steam to exist below 100 C and yet you admit that if you reduce the air pressure, it does indeed clearly exist even at room temperature.

            Your arguments are just bizarre. You have absolutely no idea of how much sciece your ideas fly in the face of.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Your claims are clearly ludicrous. People measure heats of vaporization of water, and not just at 100 C. Our human body relies on evaporation for cooling, as does the panting mechanism used by dogs.[/quote]
            LOL. I suppose next you’ll be telling us how lightning bugs cause lightning.
            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Your statements are not even consistent. On the one hand, you claim that it is too cold for steam to exist below 100 C and yet you admit that if you reduce the air pressure, it does indeed clearly exist even at room temperature.[/quote]
            You remind me of a Meteorologist named Jay Charney: http://wp.me/p4JijN-7p
            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Your arguments are just bizarre. You have absolutely no idea of how much science your ideas fly in the face of.[/quote]
            There is a lot of spare energy (what you mistakenly call latent heat) in steam. That is because steam has a relatively low heat capacity. Once steam is created it is, in a sense, relatively eager to yield its energy. That is why water/steam is so useful in steam engines. Below its boiling point steam is really good at absorbing energy. Once it flashes into steam it then becomes really good at yielding energy, which is what powers a steam engine. The supposition that this is in any way comparable to evaporation or condensation is the kind of dimwitted reasoning that we expect from people that believe in the greenhouse effect.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Oh…and I am still waiting for your improved thunderstorm and lake effect snow predictions based on your alternate reality.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]And, I should add that this is all irrelevant anyway. The greenhouse effect emerges from the equations whether or not you interpret those equations to mean that there is radiation going in both directions. It is simply a result of the fact that the net heat flow between a warmer object and a colder object depends on the temperature of the colder object in addition to the temperature of the warmer object.[/quote]

            Thank you for finally admitting that thermal electromagnetic flux from any surface temperature is always strictly limited by the temperature and radiance of all that surround such surface. Exit flux is never an only function of the temperature of the emitter. Such admission blows away any concept of “greenhouse effect”

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            No…It demonstrates the greenhouse effect. Compare a situation where there is no greenhouse effect and the Earth is radiating all of its energy directly out into space to the case with a greenhouse effect where the Earth is radiating its energy out to the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is warmer than space (which is effectively at ~3 K, radiatively speaking), for a given Earth surface temperature, the amount of power radiated in the first case is larger than in the 2nd case.

            However, in steady state, the surface most radiate away as much energy as it receives from the sun. So, the surface temperature to do this will be higher in the 2nd case than in the first case.

            So, the presence of a radiatively-absorbing atmosphere causes the steady-state surface temperature to be higher. This is called the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]No…It demonstrates the greenhouse effect. Compare a situation where there is no greenhouse effect and the Earth is radiating all of its energy directly out into space to the case with a greenhouse effect where the Earth is radiating its energy out to the atmosphere.[/quote]

            The Earth surface is not radiating, only the atmosphere is radiating to space. Without atmospheric WV the surface temperature of the earth must be higher than it is now.

            [quote]Since the atmosphere is warmer than space (which is effectively at ~3 K, radiatively speaking), for a given Earth surface temperature, the amount of power radiated in the first case is larger than in the 2nd case.[/quote]

            The atmosphere with its structure is a more efficient radiator to space than the surface can be.

            [/quote] However, in steady state, the surface most radiate away as much energy as it receives from the sun. So, the surface temperature to do this will be higher in the 2nd case than in the first case.[/quote]

            You have absolutely no evidence of this, only conjecture. You cannot find even one place of the surface or atmosphere that is ever in your so called steady state.

            [/quote]So, the presence of a radiatively-absorbing atmosphere causes the steady-state surface temperature to be higher. This is called the atmospheric greenhouse effect.[/quote]

            Please describe any place in the atmosphere that is absorbing radiative power from below in direct violation of [b]Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation. [/b] 🙂

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Just to summarize, the laws of radiative transfer show that the net transfer of radiative energy between two objects depends on the temperature of both objects. The modern interpretation of this, standard in all physics textbooks, and based on our understanding of statistical physics, is that this net transfer is produced by a larger transfer of radiative energy from the hotter object to the colder object and a smaller transfer of radiative energy from the colder to the hotter.

            However, the greenhouse effect arises from the equation for the net transfer and, hence, does not depend on this interpretation. It depends only on the fact that the heat transfer from a hotter to a colder object depends on the temperature of both objects, and hence, that the steady-state temperature of the hotter object (when it either has an internal heat source that converts some other form of energy into thermal energy or when it is receiving energy from a 3rd object, such as the sun) depends on the temperature of the colder object.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]However, the greenhouse effect arises from the equation for the net transfer and, hence, does not depend on this interpretation.[/quote]
            So, you concede/admit that your “greenhouse effect,” is not something that is determined empirically but is a matter of personal interpretation. Right?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Just to summarize, the laws of radiative transfer show that the net transfer of radiative energy between two objects depends on the temperature of both objects. [/quote]

            The only Laws of radiative transfer are those from Gus Kirchhoff to wit:
            The ability of any surface to radiate or absorb EMR, called emissivity and absorptivity respectively,must be equal at each frequency and in each direction.
            The state of radiative equilibrium of a body is only achieved when the absorbed flux exactly equals the radiated flux. (no change of accumulated power of that body).
            Planck’s equation of spectral “radiance” and. the S-B equation are never laws, but instead, helpful equations for determining the maximum possible thermal radiative flux between surfaces. [b]Such maximums have never been observed for any of this physical.[/b]

            To be precise:
            The only thermal radiative flux emitted (exiting) from a body is proportional to the difference in (to/from) radiance at each frequency and in each direction. If such difference is negative such a body shall, not emit, That body may only absorb,transmit, or reflect such incident flux.

            [quote]The modern interpretation of this, standard in all physics textbooks, and based on our understanding of statistical physics, is that this net transfer is produced by a larger transfer of radiative energy from the hotter object to the colder object and a smaller transfer of radiative energy from the colder to the hotter.[/quote]

            Such [b]intentional lies[/b] are indeed promulgated by post modern physics texts. Never by current engineering, chemistry, or mathematical texts. Post modern physics completely ignores this physical, in favor of microscopic fantasy.

            [quote]However, the greenhouse effect arises from the equation for the net transfer and, hence, does not depend on this interpretation. It depends only on the fact that the heat transfer from a hotter to a colder object depends on the temperature of both objects, and hence, that the steady-state temperature of the hotter object (when it either has an internal heat source that converts some other form of energy into thermal energy or when it is receiving energy from a 3rd object, such as the sun) depends on the temperature of the colder object.[/quote]

            There exists only greenhouse fantasy, [b]No effect has ever been demonstrated.[/b] Perhaps when all post modern physicists are gone, can earthlings start to understand “something” of how this Earth does such a marvelous operation. 🙂

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Like I said, if you deny physics you don’t like, you will believe nonsense and are not worth wasting time talking to.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Like I said, if you deny physics you don’t like, you will believe nonsense and are not worth wasting time talking to.[/quote]
            So stop wasting time! None here will ever acknowledge your fake fizzics. Joel has not even even one example of his inane spouting!!!

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            You have to about be slow witted to believe that steam (the gaseous form of H2O) can exist at temperatures below its boiling point. Meteorologists don’t actually even believe this. Like AGW advocates, they just refuse to scrutinize it because their models require it. The somewhat parallel notions that storms are caused by “latent heat” or convection are also rather obvious BS, neither ever having been tested.

            http://solvingtornadoes.com/2014/08/29/the-fourth-phase-of-water/

            There are very few real scientists in the atmospheric sciences. I am one of the extremely rare exceptions:
            http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

            It’s strangely typical for science groupies, like Joel Shore, to have formed steadfast beliefs for notions for which they have zero supporting evidence and for which they never even put two minutes of thought before they declare victory for a fight they’ve never fought and that has never been contested by anybody.

            Science groupies are ruining the atmospheric sciences by clogging it up with endless political nonsense.

            Where Do Winds Come From?
            http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-winds-in-the-atmosphere-and-how-are-these-winds-formed/answer/James-McGinn-4

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]You have to about be slow witted to believe that steam (the gaseous form of H2O) can exist at temperatures below its boiling point. [/quote]

            This opportunity was too great to pass by! The self proclaimed Atmospheric Physicist, James McGuinn, a.k.a. solvingtornadoes, a,k,a, Claudius Denk, has on this thread demonstrated has not even a high school education. Also Denk refuses to indicate any consistent meaning or consistent difference in meaning of such words (phrases) as:
            Power,
            Energy,
            Heating.
            Cooling.
            Radiate.
            Radiates.
            Radiating
            Radiance.
            Steam.
            Water.
            Ice.
            Ice crystals.
            Snow.
            Water vapor.
            Boiling.
            Evaporating.
            Condensing.
            Solidifying.
            Subliming.
            Latent heat.
            Sensible heat.
            Real scientists.
            Atmospheric science.
            Science groupie.

            [quote]There are very few real scientists in the atmospheric sciences. I am one of the extremely rare exceptions:
            http://www.solvingtornadoes.com[/quote%5D

            Denk, You are certainly not rare enough!

            [quote]It’s strangely typical for science groupies, like Joel Shore, to have formed steadfast beliefs for notions for which they have zero supporting evidence and for which they never even put two minutes of thought before they declare victory for a fight they’ve never fought and that has never been contested by anybody[/quote]

            Describing yourself again James? 🙂

            [quote]Science groupies are ruining the atmospheric sciences by clogging it up with endless political nonsense.[/quote]

            Whatever may be atmospheric science? 🙂

            [quote]Where Do Winds Come From?
            http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-winds-in-the-atmosphere-and-how-are-these-winds-formed/answer/James-McGinn-4%5B/quote%5D

            So now we all know where winds com from according to the self proclaimed Atmospheric Physicist, James McGuinn, a.k.a. solvingtornadoes, a,k,a, Claudius Denk. 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            The human mind is unable to distinguish between what it believes and what it understands. Scientific methods were developed to reconcile this. However, not in all cases is the scientific method convenient or necessary. There is a quick and dirty method to determine whether one actually understands something or just believes it: Ask them to explain it. If they genuinely understand it they will have no problem explaining it. If they just believe it they will be unable to explain it and will, more likely, lash out at the person asking the questions, divert attention by trying to change the subject, make references to irrelevant literature and many other evasive tactics.

            Pat, I gave you and Pauley Shore an opportunity to explain your beliefs regarding the purported effects of latent heat and convection in the atmosphere. You failed. You don’t understand it. You just believe it.

            Move on.

            Will Dr. Tim Take His Own Medicine?
            See comments:
            http://wp.me/p4JijN-464

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            “The human mind is unable to distinguish between what it believes and what it understands”.”” J

            Jim,
            You only describe your own insane mind!
            All the rest of earthlings admit no understanding! All admit I [b]believe[/b] someone loves me!

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            “Pat, I gave you and Pauley Shore an opportunity to explain your beliefs regarding the purported effects of latent heat and convection in the atmosphere. You failed. You don’t understand it. You just believe it.”

            I have no belief in your case. I have only measurement of what you claim to be not :zzz :zzz

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            I guess we’ll just have to take your word on that. Right?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            “This opportunity was too great to pass by! The self proclaimed Atmospheric Physicist, James McGuinn, a.k.a. solvingtornadoes, a,k,a, Claudius Denk, has on this thread demonstrated has not even a high school education. Also Denk refuses to indicate any consistent meaning or consistent difference in meaning of such words (phrases) as:
            Power,
            Energy,
            Heating.
            Cooling.
            Radiate.
            Radiates.
            Radiating
            Radiance.
            Steam.
            Water.
            Ice.
            Ice crystals.
            Snow.
            Water vapor.
            Boiling.
            Evaporating.
            Condensing.
            Solidifying.
            Subliming.
            Latent heat.
            Sensible heat.
            Real scientists.
            Atmospheric science.
            Science groupie.”

            Would you care/try to describe/distinguish or any or all of the above words/phrases? Even my kitten understands most of them! 🙂

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Meteorologists don’t actually even believe this. Like AGW advocates, they just refuse to scrutinize it because their models require it. The somewhat parallel notions that storms are caused by “latent heat” or convection are also rather obvious BS, neither ever having been tested.[/quote]

            Gee, The thermal control system of this Earth, seems almost impervious to testing by puny earthlings! Why do you think that is? 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

            Why don’t you go chase down a meteorologists, tackle him, get him in a head-lock and ask him the question. I guarantee you, you will not get an answer.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

            Why don’t you go chase down a meteorologists, tackle him, get him in a head-lock and ask him the question. I guarantee you, you will not get an answer.[/quote]

            Gee, The thermal control system of this Earth, seems almost impervious to testing by puny earthlings! Why do you think that is? 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            You have to about be slow witted to believe that steam (the gaseous form of H2O) can exist at temperatures below its boiling point. Meteorologists don’t actually even believe this. Like AGW advocates, they just refuse to scrutinize it because their models require it. The somewhat parallel notions that storms are caused by “latent heat” or convection are also rather obvious BS, neither ever having been tested.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Sublimation of H2O from solid to, monomer gas molecules occur way below the triple point temperature of H2O. Dense, heavy liquid H2O cannot exist in any atmosphere that does not also support birds, aircraft, smog, all more dense than nitrogen gas, at any altitude.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Sublimation of H2O from solid to, monomer gas molecules occur way below the triple point temperature of H2O.[/quote]

            Gaseous H2O can only exist above its boiling point. This is a law. If anybody suggests otherwise ask them to indicates how they verified it. Expect to not get an answer–ever.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Gas must emanate from any solid or liquid surface, even mercury, at any temperature, when ever that environmental gas partial pressure, at that temperature, is less than that surface gas emanating pressure.. This is often called equilibrium.
            Jim did you not make it past the 3rd grade? Does your mother still do your shoe laces?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Believe what you want to believe.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Believe what you want to believe.[/quote]
            Is this not great fun?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Enjoy your consensus. Maybe if you play your cards right you can get an endorsement from Al Gore.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Enjoy your consensus. Maybe if you play your cards right you can get an endorsement from Al Gore.[/quote]

            Gee can I push this any further to expose the insane spouting’s of James McGuinn? No assistance is requested. This is quite boring, but I are dronk! 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            You have your consensus. I do not. We both got what we want.

            I think they call this a win-win.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            They can call it anything. You have been stomped by those that you wish to be.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            So, in other words, the “greenhouse effect,” is a distinction without a difference.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]So, in other words, the “greenhouse effect,” is a distinction without a difference.[/quote]
            Jim,
            are you responding to me or Joel? I see no other takers :-*

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
            Jim,
            are you responding to me or Joel? I see no other takers :-*[/quote]

            I was responding to Joel.

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Pat,

            The goal here was to correct the basic fallacies in Carl’s arguments and explain the correct physics. There are plenty of places where you can go and learn more about this correct physics and the evidence for it.

            And, the 20th century physics that you seem to deny is essentially all of statistical physics. If you did not, you would understand that two bodies at different temperatures exchange energy via radiation with energy going in both directions, although the NET MACROSCOPIC flow (what we call “heat”) is from the hotter to the colder body, in line with thermodynamics which is a theory that only considers the net macroscopic flow.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Pat,
            The goal here was to correct the basic fallacies in Carl’s arguments and explain the correct physics. There are plenty of places where you can go and learn more about this correct physics and the evidence for it.[/quote]

            I see no fallacy when Carl Allen pointed out “The problem with this version of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is that it makes several assumptions that are out of sync with reality.” All of those errors are in the writing of Leonard Weinstein, who repeatedly contradicts himself. You Joel make that much worse with your claim “this lapse rate is limited by convection”. Convection does not change lapse rate with no WV. Only the need to prevent atmospheric supersaturation halves the
            DALR. In addition Joel, You cannot demonstrate any “lapse rate feedback” as such is but a frivolous invention of the modellers.

            [quote] And, the 20th century physics that you seem to deny is essentially all of statistical physics. If you did not, you would understand that two bodies at different temperatures exchange energy via radiation with energy going in both directions, although the NET MACROSCOPIC flow (what we call “heat”) is from the hotter to the colder body, in line with thermodynamics which is a theory that only considers the net macroscopic flow.[/quote]

            I do not deny that statistical mechanics can be useful when properly applied. Only you Joel,claim [b]”that two bodies at different temperatures exchange energy via radiation with energy going in both directions”[/b]. Such exchange of EM energy in opposing directions, at the same frequency, has never been observed, detected, nor measured in physics, or engineering!! Such is a direct contradiction of Maxwell’s equations. Such must also falsify the projective geometry as presented by Derek. I hereby deny your claims of such contradiction.
            If you wish to claim that your [b]radiation[/b]
            is but “radiance”,(potential) with no necessary power transfer, then we can perhaps discuss physics. So far you have no physics of electromagnetic radiation.
            This thread is not about your fantasy. It is about the excellent presentation of Derek Alker
            demonstrating the absurdity of claims of man-made-global-warming. 🙂

          • Avatar

            Joel Shore

            |

            Pat:

            Leonard Weinstein has very generously labored to explain basic science to you in an attempt to rid you of your many misconceptions. At least part of his motivation seems to be an intense sense of embarrassment since you guys make AGW skeptics look like a very scientifically-ignorant bunch. You would do well to try to learn some science from him.

            As for your statements about EM radiation, like I said you are simply denying 20th century physics. You could read about the exchange of radiation in almost any physics textbook or even in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

            But, hey, if you want to deny physics, don’t let me stop you. What I encourage you to do is to communicate with as many physicists as possible, expressing the fact that as an AGW skeptic, these are your understandings of physics. I am sure that it will impress all of them incredibly and give them a very positive impression of the basic scientific literacy of AGW skeptics.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Pat:

            Leonard Weinstein has very generously labored to explain basic science to you in an attempt to rid you of your many misconceptions. At least part of his motivation seems to be an intense sense of embarrassment since you guys make AGW skeptics look like a very scientifically-ignorant bunch. You would do well to try to learn some science from him.[/quote]

            Leonard spouts only the same nonsense as you.

            [quote] As for your statements about EM radiation, like I said you are simply denying 20th century physics. You could read about the exchange of radiation in almost any physics textbook or even in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
            [/quote]

            Only you Joel deny all 20-21 century electromagnetic engineering, that provides AGEIS (phased array radar), lasers, cellphones. Because you have fantasy of statistical, rather than deterministic, thermal electromagnetic radiative flux. 45

            [quote]But, hey, if you want to deny physics, don’t let me stop you. What I encourage you to do is to communicate with as many physicists as possible, expressing the fact that as an AGW skeptic, these are your understandings of physics. I am sure that it will impress all of them incredibly and give them a very positive impression of the basic scientific literacy of AGW skeptics.[/quote]

            I wish only to demonstrate the self imposed ignorance of “academic” physicists and meteorologists, of any electromagnetic radiative power transfer between locations.

            AGW skeptics. need only to point out the incompetence of “academic” physicists and meteorologists. AGW skeptics need no attempt at [b]basic scientific literacy[/b] but only to point out that you self proclaimed literate, have no clue either!

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Pat:

            But, hey, if you want to deny physics, don’t let me stop you. What I encourage you to do is to communicate with as many physicists as possible, expressing the fact that as an AGW skeptic, these are your understandings of physics. I am sure that it will impress all of them incredibly and give them a very positive impression of the basic scientific literacy of AGW skeptics.[/quote]

            Joel,

            How can your so-called greenhouse back radiation from a portion of the atmosphere with relatively little mass ever effectively supply heat to the denser, more massive lower atmosphere?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”BigWaveDave”]
            Joel,

            How can your so-called greenhouse back radiation from a portion of the atmosphere with relatively little mass ever effectively supply heat to the denser, more massive lower atmosphere?[/quote]

            A very nice question that Joel or other Climate Clowns cannot answer, except by “We are skyintists, you must trust us”. This is much like the guy in the state fair booth, selling knives that never get dull. 🙂

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Only you Joel,claim “that two bodies at different temperatures exchange energy via radiation with energy going in both directions”. Such exchange of EM energy in opposing directions, at the same frequency, has never been observed, detected, nor measured in physics, or engineering!! Such is a direct contradiction of Maxwell’s equations. [/quote]
            Wow, Pat, you are one confused little puppy. Instruments only measure net flow. So your claim is nonsense. EMR travels all directions simultaneously.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Only you Joel,claim “that two bodies at different temperatures exchange energy via radiation with energy going in both directions”. Such exchange of EM energy in opposing directions, at the same frequency, has never been observed, detected, nor measured in physics, or engineering!! Such is a direct contradiction of Maxwell’s equations. [/quote]
            Wow, Pat, you are one confused little puppy. Instruments only measure net flow. So your claim is nonsense. EMR travels all directions simultaneously.[/quote]

            So Jim, please demonstrate by any means, your insane concept of EMR flux in opposing directions.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Pat:
            So Jim, please demonstrate by any means, your insane concept of EMR flux in opposing directions.

            Jim:
            Does the sun not shine on all planets?

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Well Pat, once again you demonstrate that when it comes to science you are one hell of a good engineer.

            You seem to have missed the central message of Einstein. We live in a relative universe. This relativistic nature of reality is inclusive of the instruments that we use to measure it. You can’t measure/detect absolute flux/EMR. You can only measure RELATIVE flux/EMR. For you to suggest that I have to measure what is in principle immeasurable suggests that you maintain some kind of deep disconnect with the standard/accepted conceptualization of physical reality.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Well Pat, once again you demonstrate that when it comes to science you are one hell of a good engineer.[/quote]

            Thank you!
            This whole real, consists of the whole physical and the whole fantasy. Good engineers attempt to notice the difference. What do you notice? You seem to ignore all that is not your puffed up truth in your own personal fantasy. :-*

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Only you Joel,claim “that two bodies at different temperatures exchange energy via radiation with energy going in both directions”. Such exchange of EM energy in opposing directions, at the same frequency, has never been observed, detected, nor measured in physics, or engineering!! Such is a direct contradiction of Maxwell’s equations. [/quote]
            Wow, Pat, you are one confused little puppy. Instruments only measure net flow. So your claim is nonsense. EMR travels all directions simultaneously.[/quote]

            Indeed any measurement indicates the only flux!

            Please show any thermal EMR to a higher “radiance” in any direction. 😛

          • Avatar

            BigWaveDave

            |

            Joel,

            How can your so-called greenhouse back radiation from a portion of the atmosphere with relatively little mass ever effectively supply heat to the denser, more massive lower atmosphere?

        • Avatar

          carlallen

          |

          [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Carl:

          Taking each of your objections in turn:

          (1) . . . This effect of a changing lapse rate is called the “lapse rate feedback,” a negative feedback present in all of the climate models, i.e., any place where serious quantitative modeling of the effect is done.

          In my study of weather balloon soundings the average dry lapse rate in the upper troposphere is ~8 C/km, while it is not uncommon for a wet lapse rate in the lower troposphere to be ~5.5 C/km. Considering that this lowered lapse rate occupies 4-5 km of the lower atmosphere this results in 10-12.5 °C in “negative feedback” in humid vs. arid climates. The computer models of which you speak still assert that atmospheric water vapor causes an average of some 22-25 °C of ground level warming globally due to a hypothetical “greenhouse effect”.

          Because of the thermal structure of the troposphere that warming would have to extend all the way to the tropopause, and the “greenhouse warming” of the upper tropospheric would have to be even greater than that of the lower troposphere to overcome the “negative lapse rate feedback” that you dismiss so casually.

          All in all, if the “greenhouse effect” were true the temperature all the way to the tropopause above humid climates—say above Mississippi—would be at least 30 °C warmer than the temperature above arid climates—say above Nevada, which lies along the same latitude and therefore receives the same amount of sunlight. If one were to take the time to look one would see that no such upper tropospheric warming is present above Mississippi. In fact above about 5 km in altitude both the temperature and the lapse rate above both humid Mississippi and arid Nevada are nearly identical. The lower lapse rate therefore that is seen in the humid Mississippi air manifests itself as lower ground level temperatures. This is an “anti-greenhouse effect” if you will; it is an observable cooling of the entire lower 4-5 km of the troposphere.

          That is what is happening in the real atmosphere regardless of what might be programmed into GCM computer models and you don’t have to take my word for it. You can download and look at the raw weather balloon soundings yourself and see for yourself what I am talking about. A good place to start is on the University of Wyoming’s web site where they have stored all of the weather balloon soundings that have taken around the world for more than 3 decades. [url]http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html[/url] Check it out.

          Carl

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Thank you Dr.Carl Allen Brehmer.
            In this physical, children easily discern the [b]is[/b] from what sister says, parents only watch the TV, never recognizing the child skilful learning, while discarding sister BS, and parent BS also! What a wonderful planet

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]Derek,
      Your profound misunderstanding of the Physics of the issue is obvious. I am a CAGW skeptic, and think the CO2 contribution to climate variation is small and overwhelmed by natural variation. However, your position is to deny the basic factors altogether with your misunderstanding of the process. I have placed detailed descriptions of the processes involved on this site before, but if you missed it see:
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WPeBO_Ra9mkhWjv0J0SNmyRzHFVE9zPP8xRDUpR08jc/edit?usp=sharing%5B/quote%5D

      Have you even tried to understand the effort done by Derek? Your referenced writing appears to be like that of Doug Cotton, and simply giggled from existance.

    • Avatar

      Silent Reader

      |

      You are of course quite correct Leonard in pointing out that self-taught physicist Derek’s pal-reviewed (if reviewed at all) article shows a complete lack of understanding of the physics, starting with his school-boy memory of a corollary of the Second Law which only applies in a horizontal plane, as is explained [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url] and easily understood when you realize that the entropy equation used to “prove” it begs the question and contains no term for gravitational potential energy. By the way, did you enjoy the joke about Derek’s misunderstanding of gravitational potential energy?

    • Avatar

      Silent Reader

      |

      You are of course quite correct Leonard in pointing out that self-taught physicist Derek’s pal-reviewed (if reviewed at all) article shows a complete lack of understanding of the physics, starting with his school-boy memory of a corollary of the Second Law which only applies in a horizontal plane, as is easily understood when you realize that the entropy equation used to “prove” it begs the question and contains no term for gravitational potential energy. By the way, did you enjoy the joke about Derek’s misunderstanding of gravitational potential energy?

  • Avatar

    Simon W

    |

    You are an educator Derek Alker.
    You clean use of concept and language always makes for an interesting, stimulating and elucidating read.

    Many Thanks

    • Avatar

      Derek Alker

      |

      Thank you Simon W. Greatly appreciated.

    • Avatar

      Silent Reader

      |

      [b]Attention ADMINISTRATOR[/b]

      Richard Cronin (who is reading my paper) is endeavoring to have a genuine and serious discussion with me about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (about which you have incorrect understanding) and my hypothesis that is based on that law. It would be appreciated (in the interests of science) if you would cease deleting my replies to him and others. Such will be reposted promptly anyway.

      [b]No one has proved my hypothesis wrong, and it is supported by other published papers now in peer-reviewed media, as well as with centrifugal force experiments and copious planetary data, climate records etc.[/b]

Comments are closed