NASA’s Great Peak Fake Swindle
I would like to draw some blatant phoney baloney manipulation by NASA and all the Climate Crisis Alarmists, to everyone’s attention. That being the graph above.
This is taken from NASA website as such https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/ Sorry to break the bad news to you all but this is just a Charlatan, mirror trick the entire graph.
I rate this graph quadruple D, for Deliberately Dumbly Deceptive & Deceitful. Anyone without knowledge of the manipulations which I am about to expose, would look at this graph and wrongly think to themselves that the Earth has maximum emissions at the 600 to 700 wavenumber wavelength, which roughly aligns with the 666.7 (15 micron) emission wavelength of CO2, which in turn can be used to falsely argue that we must do something, because that is like a really bad thing right? As I am about to show you, it does not and this graph, is deliberate manipulation to trick everyone into thinking that.
To understand what I am talking about, you need to see an un-manipulated graph so that you can see the differences between the two.
Here you can clearly see that the peak of emissions is 10 micron, the CO2 emission spectra is roughly around the 15 micron waveband, which is actually much lower down the peak than the GISS Faker Graph, which has been designed to fool people into thinking things which are not true. I spotted this error on a twitter argument with Climate Alarmists whom like to use the NASA graph to trick people, in order to help lend false credibility to the Climate Crisis argument.
I noticed it, because I already knew that the 15 micron, waveband (CO2 line) peaked at around 190K and not the 294 K graph which the Fake graph depicts.
So why does the other faker graph show something different?
They way it has been done, is quite clever, it’s a manipulation of data, nothing else. You can not manipulate data in this manner and not know that is what you are doing. Therefore it is a Con-trick.
Firstly, they are using wavenumbers and not wavelengths. This is the first step of the trick. A wavenumber is quite simply, the INVERSE of the wavelength. Yes, that right people, they don’t like what they see, so they just tip the data upside down to create the false impression they wish to create. For say 1 mircon, you do 1/( micron/1000000*100) to get 10,000 Wavenumber in inverse cm.
This represents the number of times a 1 micron wavelength could fit into one centimetre which as you see is the number on the Y Axis, inverse centimetres. As an alternative example, if you had an area of 0.5 m2 and you inversed it you get 2, you know 0.5 could fit into 1 metre square, twice. This is what they have done. Imagine if the investment community did this to its investors, there would be outrage.
“Well yeah, we simply inverted profit & cost numbers to give the impression we were after, what’s your problem? Were a good company, check out the graph.”
I have produced a table of data below for the un-manipulated data.
Table 1 Un-manipulated Data 294K Blackbody Emission
In the faker graph, what has happened is that the energy emittance’s of several wavebands have been bunched together. So that the 600 to 700 wavenumber contains 14 to 17 microns, 500 to 600 wavenumber contains the combined emissions of the 17 to 19 micron wavelengths and the 400 to 500 wavenumber contains the combined emissions of the 20 to 25 emission wavelengths.
By bunching the microns together, under the “wavenumber banner” you get a totally different picture of emissive output than what is happening. This example I have tabulated below.
Table 2 Manipulated Wavenumber Graph Data 294K Blackbody Emission
The graph, using the same data now shows a totally different picture than the true, un-manipulated graph before. The fake graph using the above manipulated data is shown below and matches what NASA has done.
I can hear the alarmist cackling calls already, oh but that’s what happens when you use wavenumbers, can’t be avoided. Hmmmmm, oh really.
This is what the graph should look like if the Inverse Relationship of wavenumbers when compared to microns has been correctly accounted for, so as not to give a misleading image, which is what scientists with integrity would be expected to do. Now think to your-selves, if I can do this, why can’t NASA? FAKERS, that’s why. They are lying to you all and they know it, now you do too.
You see the X-Axis, I have not used linear jumps of 100 per point for wavenumbers, I have simply aligned them to match the Wavelength bands so as to not create a false image, by my understanding that wavenumbers are an inverse and not taking that into account gives false data, which is what NASA should have done, but then, if they did that, things would not look as bad now would they from the Alarmist point of view and we can’t have that now can we?
I hope one day, Judicial Watch & Trump and the US Government take direct action against the fakers within NASA whom are corrupting the organisation and have removed all sense of integrity from its preaching proclamations on Climate & in particular on Fake Climate Crisis. Frauds such as this should not be tolerated.
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.
Trackback from your site.
T L Winslow
| #
[[They way it has been done, is quite clever, it’s a manipulation of data, nothing else. You can not manipulate data in this manner and not know that is what you are doing. Therefore it is a Con-trick.]]
Did somebody mention con-trick in connection with the U.N. IPCC global octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists and politicians, run by environmental leftists and climate communists with the goal of hijacking science to use as a weapon to scare the world into dismantling the hated fossil fuel industry that underpins capitalism in order to pave the way for global Marxism and its eternal night of darkness?
The IPCC has turned climate science upside-down and backwards in their mad quest to foist a Marxist utopia on the ashes of capitalism.
Of course they use wavenumbers and not microns, because that turns wavelengths upside down. They should be using Planck radiation temperatures for the abscissa, in degrees C (using Wien’s Displacement Law), in which case the CO2-driven AGE hoax would draw belly laughs, not calls for suicide of the fossil fuel industry and lakes of moolah to the IPCC for redistribution for Marxist social justice.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
CO2’s 15 micron radiation wavelength corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of -80C (-112F) (193K).. 10.6 microns corresponds to 0C (273K), as in ice. Therefore CO2 can’t melt an ice cube. How silly to label the Earth’s blackbody emissions curve as 294K (9.856 microns), which is 20.85C (69.53F)) to stamp the word DUMB-ass on peoples’ foreheads, while trying to portray a big notch at CO2’s wavelength and not mentioning -80C or 193K. The entire big budgets of all the govt. arms of the U.N. IPCC are running on fumes, dry ice fumes. All new real Earth climate radiation graphs should use degrees C as the abscissa and not even go below -40C or so.
If you didn’t read my killer essay on the -80C swindle that turns their CO2-driven global warming scare stories into moose hockey, try reading it now. The IPCC’s days are numbered. Instead of churning out mountains of fake science hoax lit. on the govt. dole, these unemployed “climate scientists” should take up a new career selling treats out of ice cream trucks, if they can find a climate warm enough.
You gotta give the IPCC one thing. They led independent critics on a long roller coaster ride, churning out their own mounds of literature taking their hoax seriously, when all they had to say was “Just Say No to -80C and the IPCC”. When will the Swedish Academy send me my Nobel Physics Prize to with my Nobel Chemistry Prize, Nobel Economics Prize, and Nobel Peace Prize? My essay should win me a Nobel Literature Prize too 🙂 On second thought, forget about the Peace Prize, since that would put me in the same category as Barack Obama, who probably can’t even do first-year calculus 🙂
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
https://www.quora.com/What-is-environmentalism-ideology/answers/170561198
Reply
Norman
| #
Geraint Hughes
Something is wrong in the academic world. Your post seems to be the correct one based upon this calculator.
http://www.spectraplot.com/blackbody
Then from the University of Chicago they show this graph with background blackbodies. The peak of the 320 K is around 15 microns (they do use microns in this graph)
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html
Strange indeed. Glad you pointed this out. I am hoping that a correction can be made to keep the science valid. You should not have two groups that have completely different graphs.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
There’s no problem using wavenumbers.
The peak should still be at ~1000 cm-1
Their curve is simply not a BB curve. What the heck is it?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Good catch by the way. I wouldn’t have noticed it, as I did it mostly correct here:
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/how-much-does-co2-absorb/
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Good work again, Geraint!
We see that graph all the time. I never paid much attention to it because it is not an actual spectrum. It’s just ‘another computer generated “.model”. So it’s nice to see someone else is watching for all their tricks.
Now you’ve discredited the “plates” nonsense, and revealed the flaw in one of their main graphs.
What’s next on your agenda? There’s still a lot of pseudoscience out there….
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
The evidence appears to be true, so now all of Trump’s czars need to be advised of this. info.
The NASA and GISS people should be on the carpet. If they are found to be aiding and abetting the AGW fraud, they should be removed from office.
Help Trump drain the swamp. Get active.
Reply
Nate
| #
OMG. This is no fraud, swindle, etc. It is well known that plotting vs wavenumber gives a different peak position than plotting vs wavelength. Both are valid and both are used!
Plotting vs wavenumber is equivalent to plotting vs energy, and has equal energy steps. Not so for plotting vs wavelength.
Why is plotting vs wavelength better? Not obvious.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
No, you compared wavelength and frequency. What they did is compare wavelength with wavenumber, which if you dont take the correct approach as I indicated it gives the peak in the wrong position as the wavenumber is the inverse of the wavelength, which if not done in the proper manner as I indicated gives a false impression of where maximum emissions are. Unless ofc if you believe an object at 294k gives maximum emissions at 667cm-1 region. (Which by the way it doesnt.) There are no excuses for doing it wrong, I can do it right as I showed, so should NASA.
Reply
Nate
| #
Geraint, Please explain to me why you think plotting spectra vs wavelength is the only proper way to do it.
If you Google IR spectra of X, where X is any substance, more often than not you will see the spectra plotted vs wavenumber, which is proportional to frequency and energy.
The BB peak on a wavenumber plot IS different than the peak on a wavelength plot, but both are CORRECT. Read my link.
How can it be fraud to simply present spectral data in an absolutely standard way?
Reply
Nate
| #
” Unless ofc if you believe an object at 294k gives maximum emissions at 667cm-1 region. (Which by the way it doesnt.)”
It has a peak at around 580 cm^-1 when plotted vs wavenumber. And this is perfectly valid and agrees with their figure.
I fail to see any fraud here.
Reply
geraint hughes
| #
Nata, Using wavenumbers output peaks where I have shown it on the bottom graph. To say anything else is a lie, and tell lies makes one a liar, like you. Manipulation will be called out where ever it exists.
Reply
Nate
| #
See for example http://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/light_and_radiometry/level_2/a_common_misconception
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Thanks guys for all the great comments, I would have posted Gavin Schmidt “Why the fake Graph” but he has blocked me and I didnt even get the chance to do that. I have posted it on #fakenews https://twitter.com/Zabrana1000/status/1222234750397616129 We should all tweet asking him. “Why the fake graph gavin?”
Reply
Nate
| #
As i said the issue you are discussing is well known and not fraud, just math.
See Wiki on Wien’s Law where they say this:
“Maxima differ according to parameterization.
Notice that for a given temperature, parameterization by frequency implies a different maximal wavelength than parameterization by wavelength.
For example, using T = 6000 K and parameterization by wavelength, the wavelength for maximal spectral radiance is λ = 482.962 nm with corresponding frequency ν = 620.737 THz. For the same temperature, but parameterizing by frequency, the frequency for maximal spectral radiance is ν = 352.735 THz with corresponding wavelength λ = 849.907 nm.
These functions are radiance density functions, which are probability density functions scaled to give units of radiance. The density function has different shapes for different parameterizations, depending on relative stretching or compression of the abscissa, which measures the change in probability density relative to a linear change in a given parameter. Since wavelength and frequency have a reciprocal relation, they represent significantly non-linear shifts in probability density relative to one another.”
Same peak result when using wavenumber as frequency.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Nate,
The conversion between wavenumber and microns is simple:
Microns = 10,000 / Wavenumber
A body that radiates 294K has a peak at 9.86 microns. This equals 10,000 / 9.86 = 1014 cm-1.
The red fake-BB curve has a peak at ~600 cm-1, NOT 1014 cm-1, and that’s how you know it’s fake.
Reply
Nate
| #
Zoe, you obviously didn’t read about “Maxima differ according to parameterization”.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Nate,
For once you were correct.
Geraint,
He turned out to be somewhat right.
The formula for peak in wavenumber is completely different. Spectralcalc confirms it, and has some math here:
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody/units_of_wavenumber.html
The peak for 294K is at ~577 cm-1, not ~1000, as I thought it was.
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
The 577 number is for peak photon spectral radiance, the 1014 number (peak spectral radiance) after normalizing by the energy of a photon. When it comes to -80C radiation that can’t melt an ice cube, who cares? -80C photons in any quantity still can’t melt a can of frozen pee, they’re just too weak.
NASA and all the other IPCC orgs. are pushing a gigantic hoax and are working in lock-step to pull the wool over the public’s eyes to keep the big bucks rolling in. No matter how they twist their graphs, this is reality, and there’s no way to twist dry ice temperature heat into causing global warming, heat waves, droughts, tornadoes, etc. Graphs of Earth’s radiation from space are a bait and switch, and the wavenumber trick is a dog and pony show with no dog and no pony.
The IPCC just hates Planck’s Radiation Law because it makes all their CO2 greenhouse warming dreams into mental manure.
I’ve turned this graphing con game into a new chapter in my new real climate science course, which is steadily gaining students. How about you?
http://www.historyscoper.com/whyaregreenhousegastheoriesdeadwrong.html
Zoe Phin
| #
I got it, T L
By using wavenumbers they make the CO2 notch look much closer to the peak.
Their math is still correct, but the perception …
Or course it wouldn’t even matter if CO2 absorbed 100% of the spectrum, it still doesn’t heat the source that heats it in the first place.
CD Marshall
| #
Great stuff! That graph has been really bugging me for days and I couldn’t find anyone to explain it to me.
I’ll admit the blackbody of 294K still seems high to me. Doesn’t anyone else wonder how 20C is the IR emissions at a 100km where the average temperature is 193.15K?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Graph turned out to not be a fraud.
The peak in wavenumber really is ~100cm-1 left of CO2’s “bite”.
Relationship between microns and wavenumber might seem linear, but plugging them into Planck’s equation yields a non-linear result.
Reply
geraint hughes
| #
Zoe, you have done it wrong, see my bottom graph. That is in wavenumbers, that is how you do it.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
https://ncc.nesdis.noaa.gov/data/planck.html
Reply
geran
| #
No comment, Zoe?
Now you’re just finding links you don’t understand?
Hilarious.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
Planck’s equation for wavenumber is different from microns.
Wavenumber will have a different peak than 10000/micron-peak.
Had I known that, I wouldn’t have been wrong at first.
geran
| #
Zoe, the graph is seriously WRONG. You agreed, at first. Then you disagreed. You flip-flopped!
I’m waiting to see how many times you will flip-flop, before I explain it to you in words even you might understand.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Better to go from wrong to right, rather than staying wrong. You didn’t know you could do that?
Reply
geran
| #
Then why are you staying wrong, Zoe?
Hilarious!
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Don’t be so immature.
I’m seeking truth, not tribal loyalty.
geran
| #
Wrong again, Zoe. You’re avoiding truth, but seeking self-promotion.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
The truth is that:
Peak in Wavenumber will have a different peak than 10000/micron-peak, BECAUSE
Planck’s equation for wavenumber is different from microns.
PERIOD.
geran
| #
Irrelevant.
The truth is the NASA graph is WRONG, as Geraint pointed out.
And, the truth is you still don’t get it.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geraint simply made the same mistake I initially made: thinking that Peak in wavenumber will have the same peak as 10000/micron-peak.
But as NASA, Wikipedia, Spectralcalc, etc point out, that is simply wrong. No source tells you otherwise.
Yield to truth, Geran.
geran
| #
Okay Zoe, I’ve had enough fun, letting you reveal your incompetence. I’ll give you a hint:
“Abscissa”
Let’s see how many hints you will need….
Zoe Phin
| #
Here’s a hint:
As I’ve already said:
CO2 is not at peak in either microns or wavenumbers.
But in wavenumbers it gives the appearance of being closer to the peak.
15/10 – microns
667/577 – wavenumber
The graph may be enhancing a certain perception, but it’s not wrong, and it’s not fraud.
geran
| #
Hilarious.
Hint #2: “Abscissa scale”
Nate
| #
“see my bottom graph. That is in wavenumbers, that is how you do it.”
Geraint, you have awkwardly manipulated the graph to achieve a desired result. Not how any spectroscopist would do it.
Read “Maxima differ according to parameterization” which explains why the peak moves.
Reply
geran
| #
Nate continues to reveal his incompetence.
More please.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Yield to truth, Geran.
You’re making yourself look like an dumb-ass.
Reply
geran
| #
We’ll remember you said that Zoe, when you finally understand the issue.
Nate
| #
Thank you Zoe for looking critically at the facts and changing your mind. So rare on these blogs!
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
No problem.
In fact it’s good. I now know how to alter Planck’s formula to do an inverse meter.
This will help me figure out HITRAN absorption per cubic meter.
You should’ve linked to Planck’s formula in wavenumber rather than getting frequency involved.
Reply
geran
| #
At some point, someone will have to explain to Zoe and Nate, as they aren’t likely to figure it out for themselves.
But until that time, let’s enjoy their comedy show.
Reply
Nate
| #
“At some point, someone will have to explain to Zoe and Nate,”
But it won’t be Geran, because, as usual, he doesn’t have a clue.
Reply
geran
| #
Hint #1: “Abscissa”
Hint #2: “Abscissa scale”
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Scale is already addressed:
CO2 is not at peak in either microns or wavenumbers.
But in wavenumbers it gives the appearance of being closer to the peak.
Reply
geran
| #
Hint #3:
“Abscissa scale reversed”
Zoe Phin
| #
Scale reversal doesn’t matter. CO2 is not at peak.
Whether it’s to the left or right of the peak shouldn’t confuse a smart person.
geran
| #
Hint #4:
“Abscissa scale reversed on NASA graph”
(Denial is starting to set in. Soon Zoe will be denying her own words. It’s fun to watch.)
Nate
| #
Confirmed. Geran has no clue. As usual he tosses out big words to appear smart, but, in the end nothing but gobbledygook emerges.
geran
| #
Nate wades deeper and deeper into that Egyptian river — “da Nile”. He and Zoe will soon be drowning in their own words.
5th, and final, hint:
“Abscissa scale reversed on NASA graph, high wavenumbers (frequencies) should be on the left, as Geraint’s last graph illustrates.”
(It’s always a blast watching the clowns perform.)
Nate
| #
Wow. Informative!
Look at ANY of Zoe’s or my cites, or calculators. All agree that the peaks in BB spectra as a function of wavelength will be shifted relative to BB spectra as a function of wavenumber.
It is simply a mathematical fact.
But please do tell us what error they have all made.
geran
| #
Nate, your denial will go on all day. The issue is not the link you can’t understand. The issue is that NASA’s graph is WRONG.
“Abscissa scale reversed on NASA graph, high wavenumbers (frequencies) should be on the left, as Geraint’s last graph illustrates.”
Nate
| #
‘The issue is that NASA’s graph is WRONG.’
Ok, noted.
Then, as so often is the case, it is your word against all of the Planck spectra and BB calculators that can be found, who happen to agree with the NASA spectra.
Zoe Phin
| #
So what, Geran?
If their x-axis was reversed, but their plot wasn’t, then that would be something. But that’s not the case. You have an issue with style? lame.
You’re making skeptics look bad by not conceding to the truth.
geran
| #
Are you two still clinging to your unsupportable claims? Even Norman got this one right. That puts you two at the bottom of the barrel.
Nate— Yes, you are wrong, and anyone that believes that first graph is correct, is also wrong.
Zoe — The abscissa scale is reversed, but the spectra are not reversed. That means the graph is WRONG. The steep-drop side of the peak is where the short wavelengths, higher frequencies, higher wavenumbers occur. I know it can be confusing when you have no background with the subject.
And Zoe, with statements like this, you’re just verifying how desparate you are: “You’re making skeptics look bad by not conceding to the truth.”
You and Nate seem to be in a race to see which one can be the most incompetent. And, I’m enjoying it immensely.
More please.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
“The steep-drop side of the peak is where the short wavelengths, higher frequencies, HIGHER wavenumbers occur”
And then Geran goes to spectralcalc:
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
Changes Wavelength to Wavenumber. Sets lower limit to 0, and upper limit to 2000. Clicks “Calculate” and then returns here to appologize when he sees the steep-drop side has LOWER wavenumbers.
Or he doesn’t go to spectralcalc and reads the image in THIS post:
https://i2.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/8-2.jpg?w=709&ssl=1
Or is Geran going to deny reality?
Pathetic, Geran, really is.
I hoped you were better than this. Looo how far you’ve descended.
geran
| #
Zoe, you just keep getting funnier and funnier. You’re lost in your pseudoscience, again.
Pick something that is well known, such as the sun at 5800 K. What is the peak energy wavelength? What is the corresponding frequency. I’ll save you some trouble. The peak energy wavelength is about 0.5 μ. UV is on the “steep-drop” side of that peak.
More please.
Zoe Phin
| #
What’s your point?
Peak sun in wavenumber is
11330.7 cm-1
And not 10,000/0.5 = 20,000 cm-1
The steep-drop side is also UV.
geran
| #
My point is you’re lost in pseudoscience. Now you have two wavenumbers for the peak solar emission. You would have two wavenumbers for every emission!
If you like your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience.
Nate
| #
Thanks Dan.
Dan Pangburn
| #
Nate,
Good job! (pointing out “plotting vs wavenumber gives a different peak position than plotting vs wavelength”)
I hadn’t paid much attention because actuals matched the BB curve thru the atmospheric window. Glad to hear that the NASA graph and Modtran are OK.
Reply
geran
| #
Dan, did you forget the “/sarc”?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Dan is a serious man.
He’s seeking truth, not partisanship.
Reply
geraint hughes
| #
There is only ONE peak of emissions. A car with peak speed of 200 mph, does not suddenly have a higher speed because you change your units of measurement. The peak of emissions, when measured using wavenumber IS as my bottom graph. Anyone who says anything else, has no idea what they are on about.
Reply
geran
| #
Geraint, you did a great job discovering this! NASA is a “god” to the pseudoscience crowd, so they can’t stand for their false religion to be exposed.
As you might have noticed, a couple clowns are engaged in a contest to be “Most Incompetent”, as they try to defend the invalid NASA graph.
Hilarious.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geraint,
The Planck formula for wavenumber is different than microns.
There’s a time to yield and a time to double down. This is a yield moment.
Nate
| #
Geraint,
‘A car with peak speed of 200 mph, does not suddenly have a higher speed because you change your units of measurement. ‘
Sure, but now consider a bunch of cars with an asymmetric distribution of constant speeds. The distribution has a peak speed.
Now what about the travel-time distribution for these vehicles to cover some distance. Its distribution peak may not be at 1/ peak speed.
Just the way distributions work.
And Geraint, what about all the BB calculators, equations for the Planck distribution as a function of different variables, and the discussion in Wiki of “Maxima differ according to parameterization”
These all clearly disagree with you. Is it a massive conspiracy?
geran
| #
Nate, the contest is officially over since Geraint’s post has moved off the “front page”. You were both amazingly incompetent, but Zoe beat you by a slight margin. Better luck next time. But you and Zoe continue to entertain us, if you will. The first graph is wrong, as Geraint has explained.
Neither of you can understood my 5 hints, which resulted in a one sentence explanation: “Abscissa scale reversed on NASA graph, high wavenumbers (frequencies) should be on the left, as Geraint’s last graph illustrates.”
Your intransigent incompetence is hilarious. More please.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
Not just NASA, but Spectralcalc, Wikipedia, and every source that uses Planck’s equation with wavenumbers has it “wrong”.
geran
| #
Zoe STILL can’t understand!
“Abscissa scale reversed on NASA graph, high wavenumbers (frequencies) should be on the left, as Geraint’s last graph illustrates.”
Hilarious.
Zoe Phin
| #
No, Geran, they shouldn’t be.
Learn some science.
geran
| #
Hilarious!
Nate
| #
JD/G, you cannot learn any new tricks.
As Zoe pointed out, reversal of axis is cosmetic, and a red herring.
What happened to the your steep drop at low wavenumbers issue?
I gave you a hint:
‘Hint: wavenumber 0 corresponds to infinite wavelength.’
Still can’t figure it out?
geran
| #
Nate, it’s too bad the competition for “Most Incompetent” is over. Because your comment was definitely a great example of incompetence. You got everything messed up, confused, and turned around. You’re definitely good at incompetence.
Hilarious.
More please.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
Learn to concede the little things, otherwise you end up looking like James McGinn or Doug Cotton. Yikes!
Have you even compares the Planck formula for wavelength to wavenumber?
https://ncc.nesdis.noaa.gov/data/planck.html
geran
| #
Zoe, it’s amazing that your type can not understand this. I have my theories, but what is most puzzling is Norman got it right. Norman never gets anything right, but he got this right!
And he even went against Institutionalized Pseudoscience! Did you see his quote: “Something is wrong in the academic world.” That’s not at all like Norman.
The only thing I can figure is he must have been sick the day he commented. Sometimes when people are sick, their brain misfires. Someone smart might temporarily appear dumb, and someone dumb might temporarily appear smart.
Maybe when he gets off the medication he will return to his usual hilarious pseudoscience.
Zoe Phin
| #
“but what is most puzzling is Norman got it right. Norman never gets anything right, but he got this right!”
And? So what?
He got it right.
It wasn’t fun to admit it, but he actually did. Grow up, Geran.
geran
| #
Zoe are you so incompetent you can’t even understand Norman’s comment?
https://principia-scientific.com/nasas-great-peak-fake-swindle/#comment-31241
He agrees with me. So if you now believe he is right, then that makes you wrong!
You seem to thrive in your own confusion.
Hilarious.
Nate
| #
“More please”
Ha!
Clearly you cant/won’t defend your own declarations, as expected!
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran, why do you have to confuse everything. Nate got it right, Norman never did. If they are the same person, then they rushed to judgment just like I did. Why are you so hung up on who is right rather what is true?
geran
| #
Zoe tries to spin herself out of her mistake, and Nate still can’t comment coherently.
What a team! What incompetence!
Hilarious. More, please.
Nate
| #
Zoe,
Notice G rarely even tries to refute our facts. He just tosses insult grenades.
He craves attention. And negative attention is fine.
Best not to feed this troll.
geran
| #
Nate, your incompetence makes you miss a lot of the facts I present. For example, you have missed this one several times:
“Abscissa scale reversed on NASA graph, high wavenumbers (frequencies) should be on the left, as Geraint’s last graph illustrates.”
But, I see you are thinking about a retreat. Of course, that would be an incompetent retreat. That will be fun to watch.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
https://ncc.nesdis.noaa.gov/data/planck.html
In the top right corner, you enter Geraint’s peak:
294K and 1014 cm-1 =
87.496
Then you enter the correct peak:
294K and 577 cm-1 =
144.4499
Hmm, if 577 cm-1 yields a larger result, we instantly know Geraint’s 1014 cm-1 is not the peak.
Why you stupid, Geran?
geran
| #
Here you go, Zoe:
“Abscissa scale reversed on NASA graph, high wavenumbers (frequencies) should be on the left, as Geraint’s last graph illustrates.”
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
Microns go low to high: left to right
Wavenumbers go low to high: left to right.
Same style.
Style is a stupid argument anyway.
Nate
| #
If G genuinely thinks his reversed axis is the issue, then he’s missed the entire point of Geraints post and our responses to it.
What an ignoramus!
geran
| #
Zoe makes another comment demonstating her incompetence:
And Herb, as predicted, performs his incompetent “retreat”.
Hilarious.
Nate
| #
Geran being Geran being JD.
Just declarin, offers no evidence, no cites, no calculators that support his claims.
Reply
geran
| #
Nate, earlier you didn’t want “big words”. Now, you want citations! Inconsistency indicates incompetence, so that will get you points in the contest to be “Most Incompetent”.
The contest ends soon, and currently Zoe is in the lead. She has been really incompetent. There’s still a chance for you, but you’re going to have to really step it up.
Reply
Nate
| #
Oh and how can the gradual drop seen for wavelengths increasing above the peak become a sharp drop for decreasing wavenumbers?
Hint: wavenumber 0 corresponds to infinite wavelength.
Reply