Greenplate Effect – It Does Not Happen Proof No 2

Written by Geraint Hughes

 

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

Introduction:  In a previous article, with the same title, I demonstrated that the Greenplate effect, does not occur.

This is the supposed back radiation effect, which purportedly happens to a flat plate if you expose it to a radiant heat source, within a vacuum and then simply put another plate behind it.

The presence of the 2nd plate is supposed to cause an increase in the maximum steady state temperatures of the 1st plate as well as decrease the rate of heat loss, thus causing the 1st plate to warm more rapidly.  This is a falsehood.  Greenplate effect does not exist.

In my first demonstration, people criticised that the 1st plate was supported by brackets near the light and so this, apparently caused the test to fail.  That is false argument, as I will demonstrate.  It was also criticised for having the 2nd plate supported by the 1st with plastic spacers, because apparently this caused the test to fail also.  Again, this is a false argument, as I will also show.

Although, it is reassuring that if we pretended that this back radiant effect existed, it is surely so weak, its is nullified by a handful of plastic spacers, in which case, it really is a feeble force and can be ignored entirely.  Although, as you will see, Radiation Greenplate Effect, is a force which does not exist.

New Experimental Arrangements

For my new arrangements I have plastic velco straps on the inside of the cylinder.  These velcro straps are glued to the glass on one side and glued to small right angle aluminium brackets on the other.  The 130mm black powder coated aluminum disc, simply rests upon these supports.

Picture 1 – Velcro and Angle Bracket

Picture 2 – Brackets attached to inside of Cylinder

I have also added a support nipple to the bottom plate, so that the thermometer can go straight up the middle of the hole in the second plate.  It is glued to the plate.  This is done because the putty melts and burns and the thermometer slides.

Picture 3 – Bottom Plate

I have also changed the light bulb, from a 40 watt spiral bulb, to a 100 watt Bulb with built in reflector, this ensures that all the energy is directed upwards towards the plate & as it has a higher rating it is achieves higher steady state temperatures and achieves much quicker warming phases.

I tested this bulb and fully exposed to atmosphere at room temperature, the maximum temperature of the glass achieved 206 degrees Celcius.

Picture 4 – New Bulb 100 Incandescent Halogen Reflector

These changes are more than sufficient to show that Radiation Greenplate Effect does not exist, & anyone who talks of it as if it is real is a liar, a charlatan or a faker.  My demonstration model can be performed anywhere.  Radiation GHE is a lie.  Let no-one impart this lie upon you without you repelling it.

I have put together six different arrangements and tested each one, 5 times, with each test being performed one after the other for a duration of 10 minutes.  The you-tube video which I have which shows Test 1 of each arrangement can be seen here.  I video recorded all tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL8eQxbsb6c

In the first minute of each video, I show the arrangement and then at exactly 1 minute of recording I switch on the light and record for 10 straight minutes.  The unit is switched off and left to cool for 50 minutes.

The position of the bottom black plate and the cylinder itself remains unchanged through out all the tests.  Each arrangement was tested on consecuitive days, so Test 1 is a cold start each time.

Arrangement 1 – Single Plate in Chamber, No Lid.

In this arrangment I placed only a single black plate in the chamber, just above the light.  The chamber lid was left off so that the plate is exposed to the air.  I then switched it on and recorded the temperature of the plate over 10 minutes and repeated this 5 times, with each one performed after the other after a 50 minute cooldown each time.

The chamber as the lift is left off, would naturally result in the coolest temperatures as the maximum amount of convective cooling is experienced to the plate.

Here we can see that, each test is warmer than the last as some residual heat has remained during the 50 minute cooldown period.  Although test 2 after 10 minutes had the same peak temperature as test 1, despite starting slightly higher.  Peak temperature between 110 & 120.5 degrees Celsius were experienced.

Graph 1 – Arrangement 1

Arrangement 2 – Single Plate in Chamber, Lid Placed & Valves Closed.

In this arrangement there is a single plate as previously, this time I have placed the plastic chamber lid in position and ensured that the valves are closed to prevent any air ingress / egress.

It would be expected that restricting the convective cooling, by adding the lid, will result in quicker warming and higher peak temperatures, which is exactly what occurred.  This is how a greenhouse works.

We can see that peak temperatures are higher here and that temperatures increased more quickly than previously.  Peak temperatures of between 122.2 & 127.7 were recorded.

As you will see, the lid of the roof offered no back radiant heat induction upon the plate.  The temperature increase is entirely explained by a reduction in the rate of convective cooling.

Graph 2 – Arrangement 2

No idea why Test 1 had that sort of curve, nothing changed with the test, I just put it down to the thermometer lag on the read out.

Arrangement 3 – Two Plates – Open Lid

Here, this arrangement is the same as Arrangement 1, except now there are two plates instead of 1.

The convective restriction is much more stark than the merely placing the lid.  As the 2nd plate is the same 130mm diameter as the first plate and there is a mere 2.5mm space around this disc to the glass, offering minimal escape path for the air.

Meaning the space for convective cooling of the bottom plate is only that between the 1st and 2nd which is a mere 40mm.  The nipple on the bottom plate is 20mm long.

This ensures no contact between the two plates.  This restriction causes a large increase in peak temperatures and an increase in the rate of warming also.

We can see that peak temperature after 10 minutes is between 139 and 141.9 degrees Celsius.

Graph 3 – Arrangement 3

Arrangement 4 – Two Plates – Closed Lid
This is the same as arrangement 3, except as in arrangement 2 I have now placed the lid on the chamber. This made no difference to the bottom plate, as the convective restriction between plate 1 and 2 has not changed. Only the rate of cooling of the 2nd plate would be affected.

Peak temperatures between 130.5 & 141.1 were experienced, maximum attained was no higher than in arrangement 3.

Graph 4 – Arrangement 4

Arrangement 5 – Two Plates, Closed Lid & Full Vacuum

In this arrangement I had the two plates as in arrangements 3 & 4, but this time the lid was placed and all the air was sucked out to provide a full Vacuum.

Temperatures in this arrangement are above that of 3 and 4, with temperatures in the region of 137.2 to 145.5 achieved.  Warming rates were also much higher.  With all tests being over 100 deg C in less than 6 minutes.

This is no surprise as there is no convective cooling occurring at all.  The other arrangements were warmer because we reduced the rate of convective cooling.  With no convective cooling only radiation cooling is available to the plates and a negligible conductive cooling to the glass via the velcro straps.  (Borroscillate glass has a high thermal resistance).

Graph 5 – Arrangement 5

Arrangement 6 – Single Plate, Closed Lid & Full Vacuum

In this final arrangement, the top plate was removed and test performed in full vacuum.

We can see that peak temperatures of 141.2 to 145.9 were experienced.  The rates of heating are virtually identical to arrangement 5, with the exception being test 5 on arrangement 5,which I have chosen to ignore on my statistical analysis.  Nothing was changed, the cylinders are air tight and hold with no change in Vacuum pressure over 24 hours.  I presumed the light output fluctuated on the low side.

Graph 6 – Arrangement 6

The presence of the 2nd plate has no effect on the peak temperature or rate of heating experienced after 10 minutes.  This is more obvious when comparing the averaged data on graphs below.

Mean Analysis

Arrangements 4 & 5 had a test with abnormally low peak temperatures, I elected to ignore these.  Here we can see that Arrangement 5 mean temperatures are virtually identical to Arrangement 6 mean temperatures across the 5 tests.

Whereas the increasing temperatures and faster warming patterns are obvious between the arrangements where convective cooling restrictions were applied and then convection was removed altogether.

This is also as represented in the graph below.

Graph 7 – Mean Averaged Temperature Curves

We can see in Graph 7, that the Vacuum arrangements are the hottest and warm the fastest, with virtually indistinguishable lines between arrangement 5 & 6.

Conclusion

The 1st arrangement was coolest and warmed least slowly, because the lower plate had the highest level of convective cooling exposed to it.  The 2nd arrangement, the application of the lid, raised temperatures roughly by 5 to 10 degrees as the convective cooling was restricted to that inside the chamber only.  This is how a greenhouse works.  The addition of the lid, gave no radiant heating boost to the bottom plate.

Arrangements 3 & 4 gave roughly similar results to the temperatures of the bottom plates, because convection was restricted to the volume of air trapped in the 40mm space between the plates.

Arrangements 5 & 6 had no air in them at all, thus experienced no convective cooling and only cooled by radiation.  This is why they exhibited virtually identical patterns of warming.  No reduction in the rate of cooling, as a result of a supposed heat gain from the presence of the 2nd plate occurred.  If the back radiant effect was real, the temperature of the 1st plate would have been much higher indeed and warmed far quicker, but it did not.

This is because Radiation Greenhouse Effect as a force does not exist.  The mathematical explanation given in the Greenplate effect is wrong, it is false. To use it, is to mislead people. Any theories and fake physics based upon it all wrong, they are quite simply falsehoods.  2nd Law of Thermodynamics forbids this back radiant heating, back radiant heating which did not & does not occur as everyone can quite plainly see.

Geraint Hughes


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (115)

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    Awesome stuff Geraint !!!

  • Avatar

    lifeisthermal

    |

    Keep up your excellent work Geraint!

  • Avatar

    lifeisthermal

    |

    Funny that the creator this incredibly stupid idea of “greenplate effect” never did an experiment himself to prove it. But that’s standard greenhouse “science” I guess.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    The concept of the second plate warming the first plate is based on pseudoscience. But since clowns can’t understand the actual science, it’s nice that Geraint has done the work to debunk their beliefs.

  • Avatar

    judy

    |

    This is a really good clearly described set of experiments. I will email the link to the Canberra group. I will also send it, via public email, to all Australian secondary schools, during February. I will then send it to science centers in universities, that I have on my distribution list, in March. If anyone has any email links for people who would, or should read it, please email me on my editor@principia-australia.org
    address.

  • Avatar

    Jonas

    |

    I am impressed by your work, but I think it is a shame that universities/ reasearch centers don´t do this kind of work. There seems to be no academic interest in straight forward experiments verifying/disproving all this “climate theories”. Goverments are spending billions based on a non-verified idea ….Why do they not spend a couple of millions and do some real work ???

    Just a reflection .. no one use an umbrella to get warm. If this fantastic back-radiation existed it would be a rathe simple way to get warm. Earth IR would reflect in the umbrella so you get warming from above (1 m2 umbrella should give about 300 W extra).
    I think that if someone had proposed that concept, that person would be considered as mentally insane. When “experts” propose the same theory for the atmosphere they are viewed as genius, and no one should even think about questioning their great theory.

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      “The Umbrella Effect” Might try that out, see how it goes. 😀

      • Avatar

        Jonas

        |

        If this was handled by the UN, they would NOT try it out. They would inteview a (by them) selected group of “experts”. Then they would quickly establish that 97% of the “experts” agree that it is warmer under the umbrella. Then science is settled.
        This is the modern approach to physics.

      • Avatar

        JaKo

        |

        Hi Geraint,
        Great article. I’d like to present a few point, if I may, to the proposed “Ubrella Effect.”
        Do not forget to remove all the umbrella “canopy” material to “model” the cardinal GHG share; further, you could “model” the doubling of that share by flattening the tubes/u-channels of the “skeleton” — and project the total warming into the end of the 21st century…
        Cheers, JaKo

    • Avatar

      Mark

      |

      Hi Geraint,

      I think more details about your rig are required so that your experiments can be replicated by others. An important one is the separation between the plates. How far apart were they? What are the radius of the plates?.Also details about the thermometer would be extremely useful.

    • Avatar

      Nate

      |

      Funny you should mention ‘umbrella experiment’. I have done it. If done right it works. And shows that a thermometer exposed to cold clear sky, will warm if an umbrella is raised above it to block the sky. Works better if thermometer has black tape on it and is in a ziplock bag to reduce convection.

      • Avatar

        Nate

        |

        Also, Geraint, did you mention what was the vacuum pressure? It is important that it be very low.

        • Avatar

          Geraint Hughes

          |

          Look at the video, the gauge shows -1 bar atmospheric, i.e. Zero air pressure.

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        If Nate is trying to show the surface warms the sky, then he’s correct.

        Currently clear blue sky directly overhead ==> -61.1F, -51.7C

        Ground, in shade ==> 37.8F, 3.2C

        The surface is warming the sky, as usual.

        • Avatar

          Nate

          |

          And what does your raised umbrella read? My guess is much warmer than the sky. With the umbrella present, your sensor’s temp is raised, just as my thermometer’s is.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Unsurprisingly absolutely correct!
    Great work, Geraint!

  • Avatar

    Nate

    |

    Geraint,

    Applaud your efforts to do your own experiments.

    But its important not to overstate its importance.

    One or two homespun experiments, by folks with (lets admit) strong confirmation bias, cannot, by themselves, prove that the TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PREVIOUS experimental tests of the same phenomena were, somehow, ALL DONE WRONG.

    Can they?

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Nate, I applaud your vivid imagination. “TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PRECIOUS” experiments!

      That’s quite an imagination. Living in such a fantasy world, you probably also believe CO2 can warm the planet, huh?

    • Avatar

      Nate

      |

      Sorry but yes, JD, this is standard radiation heat transfer physics and engineering, that have been tested and used many thousands of times. For example in multi-layered insulation.

      And every time you point your IR sensor at the clear cold sky you are proving the validity of the effect. When an umbrella is placed between you and the sky, your sensor warms! Alternatively if a cloud appears, your sensor warms.
      Cloud, umbrella, or Green plate. All are acting as radiative shielding, enabling the shielded object to warm.

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        And in your imagination, everything is “proof” of the GHE. Sky temperatures 55C below surface temperatures indicates the sky is warming the surface!

        Your imagination far exceeds your knowledge of physics.

        Nothing new.

        • Avatar

          Nate

          |

          As usual JD twists people’s words to make them say what they did not say! Sophistry at its finest.

          You left out the all important warm surface (umbrella, cloud, or green plate) that is BETWEEN your sensor and the ultra cold sky.

      • Avatar

        Geraint Hughes

        |

        Nate doesnt understand multi-layered insulation. Oh dear.

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      Nate, your an outright liar. There hasnt been a single one conducted by anyone anywhere showing Radiation GHE.

      • Avatar

        Geraint Hughes

        |

        “All are acting as radiative shielding, enabling the shielded object to warm.”

        Did Nate actually say that? I think someone does not understand the purpose of “shielding.” I guess when Nasa shoot satellites to the sun, they use “shielding” to get it hotter, because its, just not hot enough. Or maybe I got that wrong, who knows.

        Nate is actually quite funny, I hope his full time job is comedian.

        • Avatar

          Nate

          |

          Also you dont appear to understand the word ‘enabling’. Mybe look it up.

          And yes in the specific context I was discussing, the IR temperature sensor pointed at a very cold sky, an intervening warmer surface such as a cloud, WILL enable the sensor to warm.

          Which part of this easily verified effect do you deny?

      • Avatar

        Nate

        |

        Another standard item missing in your paper, Geraint, is any attempt to review previous experiments or tests of this phenomena. FOR example MLI. If you done so, you would have a lot to review and explain how they had done it wrong!

      • Avatar

        Nate

        |

        Geraint, I become a liar only by your deft insertion of words in my mouth that I did not say!

        I spoke of GPE effect being well tested, not GHE!

        Nice try though.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    Huffman et al,
    Are you suggesting that the planet isn’t warming or that it is warming but is not due to human activity? I would just like to be clear.
    Thanks

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Edmond, Earth has been in a natural warming trend since the 1970s. The trend has been extended due to the massive 2016 El Niño. CO2 can not increase surface temperatures.

      Corrupt organizations try to take advantage of such opportunities to promote more government control and less individual freedom.

      Nothing new.

      • Avatar

        Edmond

        |

        Thanks JD
        Is that the same explanation that could be used for the massive increase in ocean temperature rise and if so, why is the temperature of all regions of ocean rising?

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Possibly, but we don’t really know about all of the possible natural variations. We’ve only been getting meaningful ocean temp data for about 20 years. The next 60-80 years should give us enough data to make some real progress.

          One thing we can be sure of is CO2 can not raise surface temperatures.

      • Avatar

        Moffin

        |

        The current fires in Australia are worse than recent years because of cooler waters around that country. This was caused by the Indian Ocean Dipole.

        The Southern Annular Mode appears to be in negative phase inhibiting/blocking warmer oceans to manifest rain to come down from North of Australia onto that continent.

        The Southern Hemisphere is mostly ocean. El Nino events appear to create global temperature rises in a short period with an average cooling in years following. I have seen the effects of El Nino explained but never the cause. El Nino events occur at Christmas and another thing that occurs at Christmas is the Earth is approx. 5 million K closer to the sun than during a Northern summer. A contributing factor.

        When you put your hand in a fire does the fire say, “do that again and I will burn you”?

        All regions of ocean are not rising in temperature. Half the truth equals half deception.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Muffin,
          The cause of El Nino is the rotation of the Earth and the inertia of water.
          At the equator the surface of the Earth travels east at1000 mph. The inertia of water causes it to travel at a slower rate giving the appearance of a westward flow or current. The water in these currents is exposed to the energy from the sun for a longer time and gain more heat.
          In the Atlantic this flow of warm water is directed north by the coast of Brazil creating the Gulf Stream.
          In the Pacific the current runs into a bowl formed by the Philippines, Indonesia, and other islands, blocking the flow of the warmer water. Eventually this dam causes a build of a pool of warm water which becomes warmer than the Pacific current flowing into it. The current then flows under the pool of warm water and when it strikes the dam and rises it pushes the pool of warm water eastward along the sides of the Pacific current creating El Nino.
          Herb

          • Avatar

            Moffin

            |

            Thank you for that Herb. Well described and easily understood.

            The meteorological videos I perused were saying a reversal of the Walker Cell wind cycle was blowing the warmer surface water to America without giving a reason why that wind circulation was reversing. Made no sense.

            Thanks again. Moffin

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Good points, Moffin.

          We often forget the Southern Hemisphere surface is 80% water. Add to that the increased solar energy at perihelion and the fact that high energy photons can penetrate ocean surface, and we have the makings for some great thermodynamics.

          • Avatar

            Moffin

            |

            Hi J.D.

            Thank you for the positive comment.

            You wrote “and the fact that high energy photons can penetrate ocean surface,”.

            Can you elaborate on these high energy photons that can penetrate ocean surface or point me to a reference please.
            I know a lot of energy is reflected off the ocean surface so understanding the penetrative energy would be progression.

            When there is a vacuum in information that vacuum can get filled with bulldust.

            Thank you again. Moffin

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Moffin, the “high-energy” photons I’m referring to are the visible and UV wavelengths, emitted from Sun. These photons can penetrate to depths of 200 meters and beyond. These photons have the energy to raise ocean temperatures.

            Low-energy (infrared) photons from the sky have little ability to penetrate beyond a few centimeters, or raise temperatures.

          • Avatar

            Moffin

            |

            Thanks JD.

            A little knowledge is a dangerous thing so I now feel I have a licence to kill. (satire)

            Regards Moffin

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Nate speaks the truth but no one on this blog will believe him.

    I was watching some of the video link. E. Swanson asks you on your previous experiment about the temperature of the tube. If you do not control for the energy emitted by the tube. Glass is a very good IR emitter.

    https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table

    You need to cool the glass to cold temperature to prevent it from radiating towards the plate arrangement. With heated glass emitting about the same toward the bottom plate as the top plate you would see no difference as your test shows.

    You have limited testing and terrible bias in setting up the tests. You want to prove so bad that CO2 cannot cause a GHE that you will set up experiments with the intent to prove this. This is not science at all. I suggest you consider the heating of the glass which would emit and get a temperature of the glass. E. Swanson did measure the temperature of his bell jar as he knew that this is a source of IR that can change the effect was trying to determine. I suggest you eliminate bias in your tests and become a good scientist.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Right on time Norman appears with another link he can’t understand.

      Norman and Nate can’t understand that the “blue/green plate” is nonsense, as Geraint continues to demonstrate. But Norman and Nate also don’t understand it is nonsense just from physics. You can NOT raise enthalpy and decrease entropy of a system without increasing energy.

      All Norman and Nate have is their imagination.

      Nothing new.

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        JDHuffman

        You are the one who is not capable of understanding the link. It is called “projection” you have a very limited understanding of any physics so your failings are projected upon posters who do not share your lack of understanding.

        You, first of all, have not got a clue about entropy or what it means. You have some screwed up version in your brain that causes you to form endless bad ideas. That has not stopped you yet.

        Nate understands actual valid physics. You do not. You preach to the choir of fellow ignorant posters who gained all their knowledge from blogs. Not able to read or comprehend actual textbooks physics. Content to be “genius” level minds (even though most can’t do simple math) on blogs since they were not able to master the actual material.

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Norman resorts to his insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. That’s all he ever has. Nothing new.

          He avoids the physics: “You can NOT raise enthalpy and decrease entropy of a system without increasing energy.”

          He never learns. He’s uneducable.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            Entropy does not decrease when you add energy. It goes up. You have the concept wrong.

            Here is a college level discussion on the topic with a problem for you to see.

            https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/entropy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-disorder-and-the-unavailability-of-energy/

            The hot object in the problem that loses energy has a negative entropy. When energy is removed entropy decreases. The cold object that gains the energy has a larger increase in entropy than the hot object lost (same amount of energy) so the total entropy of the system went up.

            Again. Adding energy to an object increases the entropy. You cannot decrease entropy by adding energy. Think again and read some actual physics. Your point is just wrong.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Norman, I had forgotten how confused you can be. Once again, you have found a link you can’t understand. The link clearly states: “There is an increase in entropy for any system undergoing an irreversible process.” But, in the bogus “blue/green plate” nonsense, the entropy DECREASES as the green plate is slightly separated, even though the energy does not increase–a clear violation of 2LoT.

            You’ve never studied thermodynamics, so finding stuff on the internet just confuses you. You can’t learn.

            But, you’re funny, so as Mike Flynn would say, “Carry on”.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            Where do you get that the entropy decreases when the plates are separated?

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Norman, are you admitting you can’t recognize a decrease in entropy when you see it? Are you admitting you can’t understand your own link?

            Nah, you’d never admit the truth.

            Nothing new.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            Did you answer my question. No you didn’t. Do you know why you don’t answer questions (same pattern on Roy Spencer blog, the one you trolled constantly). You don’t know the answer. So what do you do. Divert and insult. It is all you know how to do and all you have ever done.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            I asked you: “Where do you get that the entropy decreases when the plates are separated?”

            Or course you do not answer the question at all rather you divert with this nonsense:
            YOU: “Norman, are you admitting you can’t recognize a decrease in entropy when you see it?”

            How does your stupid reply answer the question.
            The fact it does not answer anything. It is just your normal diversion tactic you use all the time to fool people into thinking you know physics when you don’t. Your days of pretending will come to an end even on this bogus blog of make believe science.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Norman, the answer to your question is really simple. The answer is in your link, but you can’t understand your link.

            Nothing new.

            If you want me to explain it, do you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days?

            You won’t agree because trolling is much more important to you than learning.

            Nothing new.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            One thing consistent about you is that you are slow. Your last post is another diversion tactic. It is what you do. It is how you pretend you know physics when the reality you are clueless. You don’t answer because you don’t know. You come up with conditions to pretend you do when you don’t.

            Adding energy to the plate will increase the entropy NOT decrease it. The blue plate warms up as energy is added. Its entropy increases. Nothing in the article says different. That is why you don’t answer. You don’t have one. You bluff and Puff that is what you do.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            You won’t agree because trolling is much more important to you than learning.

            Nothing new.

          • Avatar

            Nprman

            |

            JDHuffman

            No surprise from you. More evasion to avoid the obvious. You don’t know any physics. You already know you can’t answer the question so you will evade answering it. If I continue to ask for an answer you will continue to evade. It can go on for dozens of posts. Nothing new with you.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Nprman, your effort to taunt me into answering isn’t working very well, huh?

            Just agree to not comment for 90 days, and I will teach you about entropy. But, you don’t want to learn. You just want to insult, falsely accuse, and misrepresent.

            So, keep on trying the same thing over and over, without getting any result….

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      Norman. E swanson, did not even conduct an experiment. If you do what he shows, when you switch on the vacuum pump the temperature of the plate drops.

      If you want to know, the temperature of the tube, it was 45 deg on the inside near the bulb.

      No one anywhere has conducted a test showing Radiation GHE. Not even you.

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      Norman. You need to read the article again instead of making up rubbish. If the glass emitted down towards the bottom plate, with the same radiant intensity as the top plate, as you suggested, then when I did arrangement two and put the lid on the chamber it would achieve the same temperature as arrangements 5 and 6. It does not. This was the purpose of this arrangement.

      Norman, your a fake a climate crisis claptrapper, not one word you say is true or even makes any sense.

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Geraint Hughes

    What I say makes perfect sense if you study heat transfer textbooks. When you say the glass was 45 degrees is that F or C? Was it in a really cold room? Also it is not actually back radiation, it is just radiant energy emitted from a surface that has a temperature. All objects with temperature will emit some EMR, at the temperatures we live at most the EMR is in the IR band.

    You don’t even need a second plate at to show the effects IR emission has on temperature. You have a light, a vacuum and a glass tube that emits when warmed up (about 92% of a black body at the same temperature). Turn on your light, measure the temperature of your inside plate then start to vary the temperature of your outside glass and measure its temperature.

    You claim not one word I say is true…that is your unfounded opinion of my posts. You put in a some type of sleeve around your glass tube that you can add different temperature water and see if it changes the temperature of the inside plate. This would prove what is stated by valid textbook physics and would go against your biased conjectures. If the inside plate varies in temperature based upon the temperature of the glass you prove yourself and your conclusions wrong. The only thing that is changing is how much IR the glass is generating and sending to the inside plate. As you cool you glass with ice water you will find the inner plate reaches a lower temperature than if you have warmer water heating the glass. Try it and see. You might be surprised by the results. It could help educate some on radiant physics heat transfer.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      When poor Norman starts rambling, it’s an admission he knows he’s lost. He will never admit he was wrong, consequently he will never learn.

      Nothing new.

      (Geraint—Norman and Nate are warmist trolls. They have infested Spencer’s blog, for years. They have no interest in reality, or learning, or truth. They won’t go away. They will be here for days, As with all such trolls, as some point, I just have to quit responding.)

      • Avatar

        Edmond

        |

        JD and Geraint
        In the interest of actual science would it be best to answer Norman’s question as I am trying to understand the different sides?

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Edmond, Norman has been trolling blogs for years. He has no knowledge of the relevant physics. He has never even had an introductory class in thermodynamics. He has self-educated himself on the GHE pseudoscience. His typical modus operandi is: 1) Make an unscientific claim; 2) Support his claim by linking to something he can’t understand; 3) Becoming belligerent when you show him his claim is wrong, and then resorting to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.

          He does not respond to reality, so I no longer waste much time with him. But, your interest appears sincere, so I am pleased to answer.

          First, we need an introduction to the problem.

          The original “blue/green plates” nonsense involves two idealized blackbody plates, one is blue, and the other is green. The blue plates receives 400 Watts/m^2, on one side only. The green plate is on the other side of the blue plate. So, at equilibrium, both plates are at a temperature of 244 K, with the blue plate emitting 200 Watts/m^2, and the green plate emitting 200 Watts/m^2.

          So far, so good. Here is where the pseudoscience begins.

          Norman, and the GHE believers, claim that if you separate the plates by only a millimeter, allowing no losses, then the blue plate will increase in temperature to 262K, and the green plate will decrease in temperature to 220K. (They arrive at this incorrect solution by claiming that the downstream green plate can warm the blue plate.)

          So Geraint has gone to the extra work of performing an actual demonstration, since the GHE believers cannot understand the physics.

          Norman can’t understand that changing the temperatures from 244 K in both plates to 262 K, in blue, and 220 K, in green, violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT). In that incorrect solution, entropy has decreased and enthalpy has increased, with no additional energy. That’s impossible!

          But poor Norman refuses to understand, so he desperately asks ”Where do you get that the entropy decreases when the plates are separated?”

          Here’s the answer:

          Plates together…244 K….244 K
          Plates slightly separated…262 K…220 K

          The temperature has “stacked up” in the blue plate. Now, there is a temperature difference between the two plates. A temperature difference indicates the ability to do work. By 2LoT, you can NOT create the ability to do work without adding energy.

          Norman’s own link, that he can’t understand, explains it fairly well.

          “There is an increase in entropy for any system undergoing an irreversible process.”

          “The total entropy of a system either increases or remains constant in any process; it never decreases.”

          https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/entropy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-disorder-and-the-unavailability-of-energy/

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          JDHuffman:
          You can NOT raise enthalpy and decrease entropy of a system without increasing energy.

          Norman:
          Entropy does not decrease when you add energy. It goes up. You have the concept wrong. Here is a college level discussion on the topic with a problem for you to see.
          https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/entropy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-disorder-and-the-unavailability-of-energy/

          JDHuffman:
          The link clearly states: “There is an increase in entropy for any system undergoing an irreversible process.”
          (But, in the bogus “blue/green plate” nonsense, the entropy DECREASES as the green plate is slightly separated, even though the energy does not increase–a clear violation of 2LoT.)

          Norman:
          Where do you get that the entropy decreases when the plates are separated?

          JDHuffman:
          Norman, are you admitting you can’t recognize a decrease in entropy when you see it? Are you admitting you can’t understand your own link?

          Norman:
          I asked you: “Where do you get that the entropy decreases when the plates are separated?”
          How does your stupid reply answer the question.
          The fact it does not answer anything. It is just your normal diversion tactic you use all the time to fool people into thinking you know physics when you don’t.

          JDHuffman:
          Norman, the answer to your question is really simple. The answer is in your link, but you can’t understand your link. Nothing new.

          If you want me to explain it, do you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days?

          Norman:
          Adding energy to the plate will increase the entropy NOT decrease it. The blue plate warms up as energy is added. Its entropy increases. Nothing in the article says different.

          JDHuffman:
          You won’t agree because trolling is much more important to you than learning. Nothing new.

          Edmond:
          In the interest of actual science would it be best to answer Norman’s question as I am trying to understand the different sides?

          James:
          Edmond, the link that Norman himself provided answers Norman’s question. JD was nice enough to offer to educate Norman but the price (to stop trolling this site for 3 months) was, apparently, too high.

          So . . . carry on with the trolling.

          James McGinn / Genius
          http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p119465
          Humans are delusional about H2O. And this delusion results in the following: 1) humans generally believe that H2O is simple and obvious and, 2) humans believe that our understanding of H2O is comprehensive and accurate, both in science and in general. The reality is that neither of these are true. Neither of these is remotely true. H2O is extremely complex and poorly understood by science. Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O. That is 70 different observations about H2O (under various conditions) that are inconsistent with or completely unpredicted by theory. However, human delusion runs so deep that the meaning of anomaly has been altered in the context of H2O to essentially serve as an excuse for why theories of H2O fail to explain what is actually observed.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    I am trying to understand what is happening on Earth. Record temperatures are being recorded across the planet, the ice caps are melting over incredibly short periods and the oceans are warming rapidly and rising.
    Is this not being caused by human activity?
    If human activity isn’t the cause, then what is?
    Thanks

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Edmond,
      The Earth has gone through climate cycles since formed and will continue to do so with or without man. It is the sun that determines our climate and how much energy the Earth receives. Weather is how that energy is distributed around the globe. While some places experience record heat (Australia) other areas have record cold (India). While Australia suffers drought India has an exceptionally large monsoon season.
      The Earth was a lot warmer during Roman times and a lot colder during the little ice age in the Middle Ages. You cannot use local variations in weather as a guide to climate. In the 1930 things were warmer than now while in the 1970 it was cooler.
      For the last two years the Earth has been cooling and ice growing because we have entered a Grand Solar Minimum where there are no sun spots and less solar energy reaching the Earth. This is due to natural cycles of the sun and the last time it occurred it resulted in the little ice age of the Middle Ages. It could last for centuries and the temperature of the Earth could drop by 5- 9 degrees Celsius.
      The current hysteria about a possible 2 C rise in temperature is a con perpetrated by dishonest people trying to instill fear into people and exploit that fear for there own benefit. There is no scientific basis for the greenhouse gas theory and the activity of man affecting climate.
      Herb

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Edmond, are you content to just accept the pseudoscience, or are you trying to learn why CO2 can NOT raise system temperatures?

      Are you able to reject the corruption of science, or would you rather “go along to get along”?

  • Avatar

    Jonas

    |

    Anyone of you that can tell me why nobody has tried to do a serious measurement of the “backradiated” radiation ??

    Only thing I have seen is people pointing a pyrometer towards the sky – then making a false correction.
    Why do not anyone use a professional IR sensor – cold by liquid helium (nitrogene?) and with capability to measure intensity as function of wavelength. Today we do this in space, when satellites measure the outgoing radiation. Why do we not measure the backradiated in the same way, with sensors on earth ??
    That would be the ultimate proof of backradiation ! I suspect that it has been done but not published (because it gives the wrong result)

  • Avatar

    Jonas

    |

    Just a thought. There is a low cost version. You often see people “correcting” the pyrometer for the outflow from pyrometer (roughly 380 W/m2) – that is why they “detect” backradiation.
    My view is that this correction is erroneous. The thermopile detects temperature gradients. If the pyrometer is at ambient temperature there is no gradient, and subsequently no correction.

    If one took the pyrometer and cooled it (e.g. in a box with ice) the “correction” factor would be different – but is the sensor reading different ? My guess is no.
    If I am correct in my assumption it would show that the estimated backradiation is dependent on the temperature of the measurment device, which is truley unphysical.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    Herb, JD and Geraint
    It is not only the Sun that determines our climate. It is the make up of the atmosphere, the albedo of the Earth’s surface and many other factors. It is a dynamic interplay so complex that it cannot be fully modelled.
    One thing that is clear is that planetary wide and rapid change IS occurring. Mentioning record low temperatures in India when you make no mention of the record high temperatures there is disingenuous. Record temperatures have been recorded at every latitude over the last decade and are continuing to increase. Sea surface temperatures are increasing, coral reefs are dying, the poles are melting.
    If climate change is not man made, then where is the massive amount of extra energy coming from?
    You don’t seem to be able to show this.
    Climate science has forecast the outcomes that we are witnessing surely it is prudent to act to cool the system. As Jonas points out, the greenplate effect is an abstraction of the whole system and because it doesn’t include the whole panoply of factors, (the kilometres thick column of gas above it) it cannot stand as a proof in itself that man made climate change is not happening.
    If the greenies are wrong about climate change, the outcome will be cleaning up our planet, having a sustainable energy system and killing less people.
    However if you are wrong we will potentially kill all life on Earth and if we last that long, run out of oil.
    The lobby against Man Made Climate Change has been saying for 30+ years that Man could not be responsible and that the climate is not warming, the problem with that argument is that the evidence does not support the hypothesis.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Edmond,
      Actually I did mention the record heat in Australia in the same sentence I referred to the record cold in India. I believe you are cherry picking evidence to support your beliefs. You ignore the vast geological and historical evidence (Greenland was once green) showing that the Earth has been a lot warmer in the past while concentrating on the now and panicking. (Did you hide in the basement to avoid falling airplanes during Y2K?)
      With the Grand Solar Minimum cooling there will be reduced food production and starvation. It is far more prudent to start preparing for this eventuality than becoming hysterical about something that even if we did everything proposed it would achieve little effect. (Man is only responsible for 4% of the .04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.) We have reached the point of no return forecasted by the scaremongers many times already and the dire consequences have not occurred.
      You need to become less emotional and more analytical.
      Herb

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Wrong Edmond. It is NOT clear that “rapid change” is occurring. What is clear is that there has been a dedicated effort to alter data, even “inventing” data.

      The reality is that vast areas of Earth’s surface have no long term temperature records. My particular area only has about 100 years of records. Three of the last four summers have not been able to reach average peak temperature. Sea levels have been rising for centuries, and will continue to rise as land surfaces erode into ocean bottoms. Coral reefs dying? Ocean acidification? All nonsense.

      Ask yourself how much ice cover is the Arctic “supposed” to have in summer? If you even attempt an answer, then you are fooling yourself. Arctic sea ice does what it wants to do and doesn’t care if it scares you or not.

      If you believe CO2 can warm the planet, you merely indicate your ignorance of physics.

      But, you have the right to live in constant fear if you want. Just as others have a right to laugh at you….

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    Herb and JD
    Some of what you both say is possible some is unlikely or wrong but if we only look at this from a scientific point of view, it is clear that there is enough uncertainty for us to say that man made climate change could be the cause of increasing temperatures.
    Due to my work load I am unable to discuss all the variables and the evidence but after many years of climate denial your position is becoming more challenging. The evidence is there! The poles are melting at a truly alarming rate, the sea is warming, record temperatures are being recorded across the planet, Delhi is an anomaly caused by cloud cover blocking the Sun and air currents drawn down from the western mountains where it has been cooled.
    So the fundamental question that I think needs answering is; If MMCC is the cause of the warming why risk ending civilisation by not addressing it? It is as simple as that.
    There is no need to taunt people and say they are scared for no reason.
    If MMCC is happening why not do something about it?
    Can you specifically address that point Please.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Edmond,
      The question is “if MMCC is happening why not do something about it?”
      Whenever you have an”if” it is important to determine the probability of it being true, the amount of resources you will devote to a solution, and the effectiveness of your efforts.
      It is a sure thing that the Earth will be struck by another giant meteor. It is not a question of if but when. Should we begin to prepare for this? We could launch nuclear warheads into space to try to deflect this meteor but is the cost of doing this, the continual maintenance cost for this defense, and the increasing probability of a disastrous malfunction with time, going to produce a meaningful improvement in security?
      The cost of proposed efforts to protect us from MMCC is truly enormous and yet the result of this expenditure, by proponents own admission, is minimal A single volcanic eruption could negate all of the effort and “progress” made over years in a single day.
      What advocates of MMCC have proposed is the destruction of modern society to save it, while the “disaster” they forecast is all imaginary. Man has survived climate change since we evolved and has populated every environment on Earth and prospered yet you believe we cannot cope with a temperature change of 2 C.
      Everything about MMCC is nonsense from the science supporting it, the results of it, and the threat it poses. It is a new version of irrational people running around yelling “The world is coming to an end.” and as their dire prediction pass they continue their chant believing they are right even though they continue to be wrong.
      The answer to “Why not do something about it?” is because the effort is a total waste of time and resources and that time and money could be better used on real problems not imaginary ones.
      Herb

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Edmond believes: it is clear that there is enough uncertainty for us to say that man made climate change could be the cause of increasing temperatures.”

      Edmond, think about that sentence. Fear can make people irrational.

      Primitive, uneducated, scared people were willing to sacrifice humans to “appease the volcano”.

      They likely believed they were “saving the planet”. At least they had an excuse for their ignorance of science.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    Herb and JD
    It IS a sure thing that we will be struck by another object from space and so it should be our aim to monitor objects and have some sort of intelligent plan to enable us to deal with such a threat.
    The vast majority of climatologists are at consensus on the potential climate outcomes using the most powerful modelling systems currently available. MM Climate Change denialists have for the last 20-30-40 years ridiculed the modelling but as time progresses the climatologists’ predictions have been borne out. Let us not forget that Exxon did the science in the 70’s and their conclusion was that the result of burning ever increasing amounts of fossil fuel would lead to a “Greenhouse Effect”. They in fact coined the term.
    Their conclusion was kept away from the public and buried and they now face the prospect of a court case for their obfuscation of their own scientific findings. From the 80’s onwards they together with other oil companies have funded climate change denial based on cherry picked data. They have lobbied and bullied governments around the world and have made them subservient to their industry.
    Oil is like hard drugs it is difficult to wean the addict off them but there are benefits to doing so.
    In the case of oil, the benefit is a cleaner world. Oil will eventually run out anyway, grasp the nettle now.
    The oil industry benefits from an annual global subsidy of over 5 trillion dollars, that is two and a half times more than global spending on military budgets! We are paying oil companies to poison our planet.
    Yes JD, I am frightened of this sort of entrenched business as usual behaviour. It is not irrational as you claim it is highly rational.
    If you and Herb are wrong, JD, we die but if I am wrong we clean up our world and future generations can live. Maybe you have no children, maybe you do but don’t care but you seem irrationally certain that you are right, which in itself is a worrying sign. Doesn’t life on Earth deserve to survive?
    We have started to de-carbonise, and we find that renewable energy is cheap and becoming cheaper. If we used a small portion of the 5 trillion to develop marine power systems we would have more power than we needed 24/7 forever and ever!

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Edmond,
      The vast majority of climatologists believe because that it how they get money. The “science” has gone from a minor field of study to one pumping out countless useless graduates looking for jobs. The vast majority of lawyers in the US believe the civil justice system is good, even hough it is a travesty of justice, because that is how they make money.
      The only computer model that comes close to predicting the past (not difficult) is the Russian one and it is ignored because it doesn’t give the “right answer”.Since none of the catastrophes these models have predicted (the islands in the pacific are not submerged) I assume your belief in the improvement of these models come from your unshakable belief in theory not from past accuracy.
      Take a look around you. 50 % of the weight of all the limestone, marble, lime, and cement that exists on the planet was once CO2 in the atmosphere. It was corals, mollusks and other animals that removed it from the carbon cycle and lowered the CO2 level to our present low levels. Plants evolved when the CO2 level on the Earth was far far greater than now. It is only because of plants converting CO2 into oxygen that animals and humans exist. The present level of CO2 is a starvation diet for plants. This is why commercial greenhouses increase the level of CO2 threefold to grow plants. Your concerns of the danger of increased CO2 levels is completely unsupported by evidence and is a result up irrational hysteria.
      Renewable sources of energy are not cheap, efficient, or reliable and their existence is only due to massive subsidies paid for by taxpayers and provided by truly stupid and ignorant politicians who only concern is getting elected so they don’t have to do anything productive and depend on they abilities to earn money. If it weren’t for subsidies the electriccar industry, solar panels, and wind power would disappear and all that would remain would be the toxic un-recyclable waste they are made from.
      I suggest that you take time off from worrying about an imaginary and impossible future to study the past and some real science for yourself and stop taking the word of scaremongers trying to steal more money.
      It was not Exxon that invented the CO2 nonsense it was Greta’s great grandfather.
      Herb
      P.S. We did not run out of oil in the 1980 s like all the experts predicted.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Edmond,

      “Let us not forget that Exxon did the science in the 70’s and their conclusion was that the result of burning ever increasing amounts of fossil fuel would lead to a “Greenhouse Effect”.

      What you meant to say is that ONE Exxon employee went to a government conference and reported back “his” findings. What’s missing from your convenient narrative is that this employee was debunked by other employees.

      “Their conclusion was kept away from the public and buried and they now face the prospect of a court case for their obfuscation of their own scientific findings.”

      And no one that subscribes to this pathetic narrative will quote their findings.

      We are forced to jump to the conclusion that their findings were in support of AGW, and yet again, NO QUOTES to that effect.

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    As I stated Edmond, “Fear can make people irrational”.

    And behaving irrationally is avoiding reality.

    You have covered yourself with layer upon layer of media hype. All of it can be easily debunked. Let’s just take one truth, to debunk it all:

    “CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source, so it can NOT raise the temperature of the system.”

    Once you understand that simple truth, you are on the road to reality.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    Guys, Please!
    All you do is avoid answering the question. You are so certain that you see the whole picture and that you are right that you don’t even acknowledge that there ARE an increasing number of extreme weather events and that the climate IS becoming more chaotic.
    According to you guys everything is just fine. Australia is not burning really it must be a conspiracy to get more money for climatologists.
    Correct JD, CO2 is not a thermodynamic heat source.
    I didn’t say it was.
    But you still can’t bring yourselves to answer the question.
    What if you are wrong?

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Edmond’
      Climate is determined by the energy coming to the Earth from the sun.Weather is how that energy is distributed around the globe. Erratic weather is a result of a change in energy coming from the sun. I suggest you read the current article in PSI on the COLD weather in Australia. It shows that changes in the jet stream causes erratic weather.I would also suggest you read the article on the problems with wind turbines.
      Herb

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Edmond,
      In the 1974-75 season, there was 10x more land area that was burned by fire. And while this year was unusually dry for Australia, 1974-75 was a very wet season.

      Such a simple fact makes your cult’s arguments look really stupid, doesn’t it?

      Maybe you should learn some data history:

      https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/30/what-global-warming/

    • Avatar

      Matt Holl

      |

      Hi Edmond.

      Challenge all you hear from all sides. Challenge your own statements before you repeat the lies of others
      Mankind has a track record of keeping records. Tony Heller’s blog, “realclimatescience.com” shows old newspaper cuttings of records. Extreme weather events are not increasing but they will again one day. At the bottom of his home page check out “who is Tony Heller. Check out “proof of life on mars” on Mr Heller’s site. These scientists believed what they were saying without the current fear of loosing their jobs.
      You say Australia is burning. Have you checked out the Indian Ocean Dipole causing the tropical storms around Madagascar last year and the drought in Australia. The Southern Annular Mode being in negative phase (which appears to have just reversed) which was blocking tropical rain events in Northern and Eastern Australia. Have you checked out Aboriginal Cold Fires. (thousands of years of Aboriginal fire avoidance and mitigation measures)
      Moffin pointed you in the right direction but rather than exploring fact from fiction you sit there quivering and drooling, creating record flooding around your computer.
      In answer to your question. Herb, Zoe and JD are continually challenging the science.
      I tend to research retired scientists who can speak their truth without fear of loosing their job.
      Learn to differentiate lies from errors. With lies if you scratch the surface you will find recurring things that do not add up DO YOUR HOME WORK

      • Avatar

        Edmond

        |

        Guys, you are still avoiding the question. You keep going off on one just like you are accusing the opposition of doing. Of course the Sun is the source of the energy in our climate together with vulcanism but you conveniently leave out the rather crucial gas make up of our atmosphere. You are just not being rigorous, you are using local indicators to prove your global argument. The truth is you don’t know.
        Could someone actually answer the question that none of you have even acknowledged.
        IF YOU ARE WRONG THEN WE DIE BUT IF I AM WRONG, WE WILL HAVE CLEANED UP OUR ENERGY SECTOR AND HAVE A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SUPPLY.
        Are you telling me you are 100% correct and that there is nothing to worry about?
        If you start talking about it being too expensive to change, don’t forget the five trillion of SUBSIDY that goes to the oil industry EACH YEAR.
        Please address the point.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Edmond,
          If you are wrong we will not have a clean, sustainable, or secure energy supply unless you are willing to commit to building many more nuclear power plants, install a massive new electric distribution grid to provide the power for cars now provided by gasoline, and are willing to abandon the regions of the planet where it is too cold in winter to have your green solutions work.
          Electric cars have limited range and need to have their batteries replaced every 5 to 7 years at 1/3 the cost of a new car. The batteries (at this time) contain toxic metals, are not recyclable, and must be deposed of in hazardous waste sites.
          Are you willing to have a hazardous waste dump, a wind farm, or a nuclear power plant next to your home or do you believe “not in my backyard”?
          We will need the military because with the grand solar minimum (have you bothered to read about it?) there will be large scale crop failures and shortages of food will lead to civil unrest (French revolution) and wars.
          Your contention that we will all die from global warming is utter nonsense. You may not believe it but there are people living in the tropics where the temperature is already greater than the apocalyptical 2 C increase forecasted. In what climate did early civilizations (Egypt, Greece, Mayan, Carthage, Rome, India, China) begin and flourish?.
          Herb

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Edmond asks: “Are you telling me you are 100% correct and that there is nothing to worry about?”<./i>

          In science “100%” is avoided. “Certainty” is usually represented by a number of “nines”. For example, a certainty of “99.99%”, would be said to have a certainty of “4 nines”. If you fly on a passenger jet, the probability you will arrive safely is over “6 nines”.

          The probability that the law of physics are correct has more “nines” than you would care to write.

          Edmond, you should be afraid of the fact that you are always afraid.

          That should scare you….

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Edmond,

          “but you conveniently leave out the rather crucial gas make up of our atmosphere.”

          And you crucially didn’t follow my link to learn that climate scammers flipped geothermal and attribute what it does to GHGs.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    Hi again Guys
    You still seem unwilling to answer the question and I can only assume that you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that you could possibly be wrong.
    I don’t see your arguments as being scientific, you just seem to want to make points stick that are even less rigorous than the climatologists have provided.
    Just one last thing, EVEN the oil companies are de-carbonising.
    If we could all step away from our ego, we could really make this planet work.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Edmond, you are hilarious.

      You’re afraid of both your make-believe hoaxes, and you’re also afraid of reality. You’re afraid of everything!

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi J.D.,
        It is obvious from Edmond’s responses that he cannot read, comprehend, or think. It is a waste of time to make a futile attempt to educate a fool.
        Herb

        • Avatar

          Jim McGinn

          |

          The consistency of the trollish stupidity of Norman and Edmond bring me to wonder if they are not the same person.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    Well, as I expected none of you answers the question.
    That is proof that you are so heavily invested in being correct that you will argue that your ship is seaworthy whilst it sinks.
    Even Shell, Exxon, Chevron and BP acknowledge MMCC as do most states in the U.S, most governments, the insurance companies and big business. Why in the world would they do that if YOU were right?

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Edmond, you forgot to mention the “97%”! How could you forget?

      Maybe you know the “97%” has already been debunked many times, over the years. Maybe you don’t know all the rest of your nonsense has also been debunked. Clinging to nonsense, while avoiding reality, is desperation.

      Fear can cause lots of desperation.

      Boo!

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    JD et Al
    I am certain that if you had proven what you claim to have proven, the oil companies would be very keen to hold up your proof and dismiss the 97%. The fact that they are most definitely in the 97% camp says everything.
    You still have not addressed the question. You are puffed up with your own flawed certainty
    and you are unable to even consider that you could be wrong. This is just not scientific.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Edmond,
      Oil companies have nothing to lose. They used to green the Earth for free, and now their customers are being forced to pay for it.

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    Edmond, you agreed with me: “Correct JD, CO2 is not a thermodynamic heat source.”

    To realize that simple fact, but yet continue to believe that CO2 is causing any warming, is just not being rational.

    And to keep claiming that we haven’t answered your question is just as irrational. As you stated, “This is just not scientific”

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    But still I ask JD, where is your answer? I suspect that your answer would be ” I am not wrong! “. You are refusing to answer the question which is not about one aspect of the science, it is about whether the planet is warming and secondly, if it could be caused by civilisation’s activity. You seem to ridicule both possibilities.
    This is about the survival of life on Earth not your egos.
    But what if you are wrong?
    That is the question that you all refuse to honestly answer because in your eyes the 97% and the greenies are obviously and outrageously wrong and it’s all a con to get our money.
    You cannot give an answer because it will blow your cover.

    On the other matter you mention, possibly I don’t understand the meaning of “CO2 is not a thermodynamic heat source”. but it is an intermediary in the transmission of energy through the atmosphere and as such it has been shown to contribute to warming the atmosphere by one of the largest scientific efforts in history. This effort has not been centrally coordinated in order to arrive at a pre determined result.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Edmond, the only reason I continue to respond to you is that I want both your delusion, and irrationality, to be completely exposed.

      Your are obsessed with your delusions, resulting in irrational behavior. You no longer have the ability to face facts or reason.

      You admitted that CO2 can not raise the temperature of the system, but now you are trying to find some way to still believe.

      You keep asking the same illogical question, over and over, believing the question somehow makes you appear sane. That plan is not working for you.

      Do you plan to eat today? Don’t you realize that all food contains things that could kill you? There is at least one dangerous bacteria cell in the air you will breath today. Will you actually risk taking a breath? Irrational people focus on things like this. The rest of us just enjoy life.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    JD, Geraint, Herb, Zoe
    Yet again none of you answer the question. You have totally lost the argument.
    The predictions of the 97% are coming to pass with each passing week, in fact the results are more extreme than the predictions from previous years.
    Because you have a veneer of authority, the gullible believe you. You must know that you are pedalling lies. You are therefore complicit in a campaign of ignorance that keeps the rich getting richer and the possibility of life on Earth becoming untenable.
    The fact that you know you are lying surely makes what you are doing a crime.
    You won’t answer this, I am sure of that or you’ll tell me how scared I am.
    I’m certainly scared of the stupidity that has brought us to the point of annihilation,
    because even in the light of the growing evidence of your false claims, you still keep stating the same lies.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Edmond, this issue should be about science. It should NOT be about politics, emotions, and seeking funding.

      The facts aren’t on your side. Consequently, you have to resort to false accusations. We’ve seen this all before.

      Nothing new.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Edmond. The question was “If MMCC is the cause of the warming why risk the end of civilization by not doing something about it?” I answered that question by saying that it was not worth the time, effort, or money on something with little chance of being true, just as it is not worthwhile in preparing for a giant meteor hitting the Earth. When I mentioned record heat in Australia and record cold in India you said I was being disingenuous by not mentioning the record heat in India.
      I surmise from your selective reading that you are either a politician or in advertising because you seem very adept at lying. You are either a fool, an idiot, or delusional and there is no way to communicate with you by using science evidence.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    Here is a link to a letter from Larry Fink, chairman of BlackRock Inc, the largest asset management company in the world with 7 trillion dollars under management.
    They have woken up.
    Please read it. If we all work towards an intelligent solution, we can create a better world.
    https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      LMAO
      The irony between your previous 2 posts is TOO RICH.

      What’s it feel like to have your fingers cut off from your brain?

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Edmond, one of the great fund managers was Peter Lynch. He was constantly approached by con-artists, trying to interest him in investing. He always said that if someone couldn’t explain to him in about 50 words, in a way a 12-year-old could understand, then he wasn’t interested.

      IOW, he knew people could orchestrate elaborate hoaxes. If their nonsense were presented clearly and succinctly, it could be quickly discredited.

      So, explain to us in 50 words, in terms a 12-year-old can understand, how CO2 can warm the planet.

      it will be fun discrediting the usual nonsense, once again.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    JD
    I can’t believe that you still do not answer the question!
    WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG?
    I would suggest that you are the one with the hoax, your greenplate effect is an abstraction from the whole system dynamic. You seek to describe a vast complex system by analysing one aspect of that system, claiming it explains everything and then you ram it down peoples throats and belittle them if they ask questions. There’s the hoax.
    For the last thirty years you guys have been saying that there is no warming, I think you’re still saying that. Are you seriously telling me that the planet isn’t rapidly warming? Not only is that not scientific but it must fly in the face of your own senses. Another hoax.
    Until you can answer the question; WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG? you have no credibility.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Edmond, Skeptics did not originate the “plates” nonsense. That came from Warmist’s pseudoscience. Skeptics do not have to twist and distort physics. Your side does.

      And what Skeptics are saying is that any warming is due to “natural variability”, not CO2. That is, of course, if there really is any meaningful warming outside of all the “adjustments”.

      As I stated above, the facts aren’t on your side. Consequently, you have to resort to false accusations, as you did again. That’s all you’ve got, besides your distracting question — “What if Skeptics are wrong?”

      If Skeptics are wrong, that would mean that the laws of physics are wrong. That would mean everything you have would not exist—no TV, no cell phone, no computer, no car, no planes, no trains, no bicycle, no house, no clothing, no tools, no food, nothing! You couldn’t even light a fire because a fire results from the laws of physics.

      It’s a good thing Skeptics are right, huh?

    • Avatar

      Grim Reaper

      |

      As a skeptic, I say sacrificing CO2-global warming alarmists to Gaia by throwing them into their nearest active volcano will have no effect on global warming. But what if I’m wrong? OK, let’s give it a go. What have we got to lose?

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    OK, it’s obvious that you guys are so invested in the inviolability of being right that you would be psychologically incapable of admitting you could be wrong.
    By the way you don’t have the “proof” you just have hoaxes.

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    Sorry Edmond, but you’re WRONG again.

    You’re the one with the hoax. You actually believe the sky can warm the surface. But, I monitor sky temperatures using remote sensing. Just for you, the latest readings:

    Bright sun, clear blue sky, directly overhead –> -66.1F, -54.5 C (Note the “minus” signs.)

    Ground, in the shade –> 56.4 F, 13.6 C

    Smart people would realize the sky is NOT warming the surface.

  • Avatar

    Steve

    |

    I mentioned this experiment on a message board where there is no shortage of people who believe wholeheartedly in back radiation… One of the denizens looked at the experiment and suggested that of course there was no back radiation because there can’t be back radiation in a vacuum.

    What do you even say to such a statement?

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Steve,
      Tell him that if he’s arguing conduction/convection destroys backradiation, then he has debunked the GH effect. You can thank him for doing so.

      • Avatar

        Steve

        |

        Good comeback…sometimes people say things that are so far out there that it just boggles the mind.

  • Avatar

    Edmond

    |

    JD
    What does giving me you local temperature prove?
    Again you are not being scientific, you are wedded to your hoaxes.
    Even the incontrovertible fully verified evidence would not be sufficient for you.
    You seem to have your own special brand of physics that ensures you are always correct.

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    Edmond, the observed temperatures debunk your unwarranted fears. The sky can not heat the surface. To cling to your false beliefs, you avoid facts and logic.. You then resort to your false accusations and insults.

    Nothing new.

    Currently still dark, directly overhead –> – 75 F, – 59.4 C (Note the minus signs)

    Ground –> 30.1 F, – 1.1 C

Comments are closed