We’re All Going To Die: Alarmists In Our Midst

Written by Steven Boykey Sidley

Greta Thunberg NYC

We are all going to die. The raspy scream of headlines, op-eds, demonstrators, wonks, activists, dinner guests, and friends.

Or worse, our kids are all going to die (a dash of guilt to spice up the fear). The public sphere is so awash with alarms so loud that our ears ring.

Not so fast.

We read it every day. Climate, Trump, fundamentalists, Putin, antibiotic resistance, asteroids, AI weapons, Brexit. Misery is certain to come, thousands will die. No, wait, millions. Maybe billions.

Well, perhaps. But more likely perhaps not.

An interesting report came out recently from the Brookings Institution in the US. It presented findings from a Stanford academic, Michael Webb.

Webb was apparently dissatisfied with the gloomy predictions of imminent mass global unemployment under the boot of artificial intelligence and robotics and other Fourth Industrial Revolution magic.

His very clever trick was to analyze applications lodged at the US patent office across many industries and professions to see who would lose jobs in the future, and by what means (he used AI to do the analysis, a lovely irony).

It turns out that we are not all going to lose our jobs. Some will, and surprisingly, a goodly percentage of those will be university-degreed experts, where AI really earns its stripes — doing the smart things that smart humans think are untouchable.

The rest of the middle class need not worry too much, Truck drivers, of course. Repetitive labor, yes. But for the majority of jobholders — don’t worry too much.

And then there is the climate crisis. The science behind climate change is pretty robust, even largely settled at this point, with arguments and contestation mainly happening at the arcane edges of the science.

But a careful look at the reports of the IPCC (where the science has been grinding away for a long time in one of the largest multi-country science investigations in history), you will find none of the horrors described by Greta Thunberg or Extinction Rebellion or many smart writers and journalists.

To those horrors — they may be out there, but you will find no scientific consensus, just opinion, and less-than-disciplined extrapolation.

What you will find in the IPPC studies is a careful description of a clear problem. You will find little about specific extreme weather events (like the fires in Australia or California), or cities being swamped in the next 15 years, or mass eco-migrations, or the desiccation of food supply or sixth extinction and so on.

You will find inside and outside boundaries of temperature rises and ice studies and sea level rises and parts-per-million carbon graphs.

No one is unconcerned and some are more concerned than others, but there are not many within the deep-number-wrangling labs who will extrapolate to the point of the human extinction or even mass immiseration.

The prediction-caution shown by scientists is at least partially a result of previous embarrassments.

Like the Club of Rome in the early 1970s and its population projections (and how the world would certainly see mass starvation and social upheaval on a spectacular scale).

What happened? It failed to foresee success in contraception and family planning and massive-scale increases in food production.

The same happened with AIDS (whatever happened to the blaring headlines about the depopulation of Africa?). It was nonsense, imagined by well-intended people.

Extrapolation of graphs into the future is a terrible idea in the face of human ingenuity and technological and societal change.

…snip…

So, back to climate. There are many paths humanity can take to mitigate and even arrest the slope that we are on.

The most immediately scalable one is nuclear energy (with multiple new designs that mitigate most, if not all the historical objections and technology weaknesses).

And by manipulating fundamental economic imperatives with a tightly controlled carbon tax, with UN oversight. And many other technologies, all bubbling with the fuel of urgency, such as renewables.

I must admit to having rung some alarms myself, and been exercised by others. But our planet and its inhabitants have improved over millennia, in almost every way we can measure — that’s what the data shows, pretty incontrovertibly.3

Of course, the alarms will not quiet soon, because we seem to need them, even love them. But they do not solve the problems.

People do, often the quiet ones.

Read rest at Daily Maverick

****

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 (112)

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    I have to disagree about science being settled and the debate being over. That is an alarmist tactic, and true science is never settled and debate should be on-going. We don’t need so-called ‘renewable’ enery, fossil fuels are perfectly good, plus nuclear. We don’t need carbon taxes to cut CO2, we need more of that not bloody less.

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      Absolutely agree 100%

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      AR:
      science is never settled and debate should be on-going.

      JMcG:
      Meteorologists have been lying to the public and feeding us plainly irrational models for almost 200 years now. Yet we don’t see you raising a fuss about them, do we?

      Meteorologists and climatologists all have the same training. This means they are all skilled at the conversational aspects of science that the public finds most convincing.

      Meteorologists revel in the fact that most science skeptics are really just simple minded conservative ideologues who are only capable of recognizing scientific incompetence when it contradicts their ideological values.

      James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
      http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125466
      I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.
      My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    “mitigate and arrest the slope that we are on”….???? Would that be the slippery slope? “tightly controlled carbon tax, with UN oversight”….???? No thanks. CO2science.org believes more CO2 is a good thing for mankind. Professor William Happer and Dr. Patrick Moore believe CO2 is just one small factor among a large no. of factors that affect the climate. Someone pointed out that US postage stamp prices have displayed a sort of “hockey stick” graph like CO2 in recent years….correlation?

  • Avatar

    Steve Parker

    |

    I note that the Tory Party in Britain is putting forward the idea of planting trees whilst reducing CO2 as part of its climate policy. The irony of that policy seemed to be lost on the press.

    • Avatar

      David Wieland

      |

      Oh, it’s all about “carbon sequestration”, don’t you know. The carbon cycle doesn’t work like it used to, now that the climate-industrial complex has gotten up to speed.

  • Avatar

    Matt Holl

    |

    .Hi scientist
    I have read your referenced article and appreciated the logic and I managed to follow it without doing an audit of the math, which is something I am not competent to do.

    I did note that the following extract from your article does not appear to include new insolation from daytime sunshine and wondered if that could be an oversight and something that the baddies could challenge

    ” It is obvious that, if the surface cools by a given amount in emitting a certain amount of radiation then, even if all that radiation were reflected back to the surface, and even if the electromagnetic energy in the radiation were converted back to thermal energy (which simply does not happen if the surface is warmer than the source of radiation) then there would still not be more energy than the original amount radiated as the surface cooled. Hence the “back” radiation cannot raise the surface temperature above the original temperature from which it cooled while emitting the original upward radiation.”

    Doug. I am a simpleton non scientist and probably have overlooked something but I am just watching your back.

    Keep up the good work.
    Regards Matt

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Al,

        There is one glaring difference between what Doug wrote and the hydro-flask challenge. It is that Doug was directly referring to a natural system and your referenced article directly refers to an artificial system.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Jerry,

          There is one glaring difference between what Al provided and what you provided. Al provided something constructive and relevant. You provided your usual unrelated distraction.

          Have a great day.

      • Avatar

        Matt Holl

        |

        Hi Al
        A really good article, I appreciate the reference.

        Of note is Dr Tim Ball references a place in North Africa where day time temperature hit approx 50 degrees celsius and that night the surface temperature dropped below freezing. Dr Tim states that is the biggest record temp differential. Dry desert conditions with very little evaporation.
        Regards Matt

      • Avatar

        T. C. Clark

        |

        ……..”you could warm yourself by standing in front of a mirror. Hows that for NASA science? ” Actually, NASA invented a mylar….space blanket that reflects 97% of radiated heat….you can purchase one in silver or gold….used in the space program…used for emergencies. It seems to me that NASA is claiming a one way blanket instead of a greenhouse….a magical one way blanket that allows “short” radiation to pass 100% thru it from the sun but blocks about 1/2 of the “long” radiation back from earth into space…..and if you add more CO2, the temp on the earth side of the blanket just goes higher…..must have made the magic blanket even more effective?

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Matt,

      Doug and i have corresponded at length and I could not convince him about the influence of clouds upon the long wave (IR) radiation being emitted by the matter below the clouds.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Al Shelton

        |

        What happens if 100% CO2 is put into the flask instead of having a vacuum?

        • Avatar

          Matt

          |

          The hothouse gas feed back loop causes the vacuum flask to melt. (satire)

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Jerry,

        Who cares?

        Have a great day.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    It appears you believe in backconduction. That’s what your heat creep amounts to.

  • Avatar

    Matt

    |

    Hi Scientist.
    A good video and worth the watch . Thank you.
    Matt

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Matt,

    One factoid after another. ‘Anything that is said (written) often enough must be true.’

    People can watch this video and not question how the clouds in several of the actual photos of the video might be influencing weather (hence climate because climate is merely the average of specific meteorological factors on a given day of the year at a given location).

    How stupid is it to pretend there is a global climate when we know the climate on one side of a mountain range is commonly different from the climate on the other side of the same mountain range?

    And it took me less than 5 minutes to type this and probably even less time for you to read it. However, what I have written is not a factoid because so few actually refer to what is actually being seen in real time.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Backconvection is just as stupid as backradiation. No, backconvection can not heat in the direction of increasing mass and heat capacity. Don’t be a junk scientist.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Sun warms Earth’s surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. Then infrared energy moves from the atmosphere to space. Entropy increases.

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Geran,
        No. It’s sun heats the atmosphere the atmosphere heats the surface of the Earth.
        It takes 940 kjoules/mole (30 kjoules/gram) to split the triple bond in a nitrogen molecule. It takes 450 kjoules/mole (15 joules/gram) to break an O2 molecules into 2O. The sun’s uv does this creating the ionosphere and the ozone level. This energy becomes kinetic energy of the molecules and atoms. At lower levels of the atmosphere when uv is absorbed by the gas molecules it is converted to kinetic energy during collisions before enough energy is absorbed to break the bonds between the atoms. Just because oxygen and nitrogen molecules are too small to absorb kinetic energy doesn’t mean they can’t radiate kinetic energy.
        Herb

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Geran,
        No. The sun heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere heats the surface of the Earth.
        It takes 940 kjoules/mole (40 kjoules/gram) to break the triple bond forming the nitrogen molecule. It takes 450 kjoules/mole (15 kjoules/gram) to break an oxygen molecule. The uv energy from the sun creates the ionosphere and ozone layer by breaking these bonds. This energy is converted into kinetic energy of the molecules and atoms. In the lower atmosphere when uv transfers energy to the molecule’s bond it is converted into kinetic energy of the molecules during collisions before enough energy be transferred to break the bonds.
        Just because nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb infrared energy does not mean that they do not absorb energy or radiate kinetic energy.
        Herb

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Herb, that kind of a mistake is often made by people that do not understand the relevant physics.

        The atmosphere is NOT a heat source. Any solar energy the atmosphere absorbs and then re-emits to Earth surface is still solar energy. UV is a minor part of the solar spectrum. Most of the solar energy is in the visible and near IR (less that 1 μ) wavelengths. The significant heat energy flow is from Sun, to Earth surface, to atmosphere, to space.

        Hope that helps.

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Geran,
        No uv is not a minor part of the wave spectrum, it contains the greatest amount of energy. (Plank’s E = frequency times Plank’s constant) Uv will penetrate the entire atmosphere and penetrate 10 meters into water. The red and long wavelengths of light will be absorbed by the atmosphere and the top layer of bodies of water.
        The reason infrared telescopes need to be above the atmosphere to see deep into space is because the wavelengths will be absorbed by water.The reason they don’t have uv telescopes is because its energy will be absorbed by most molecules so it doesn’t penetrate far from its source. The visible spectrum is a minor transmitter of energy. If you sit in the sun under a pane of glass (which does not allow uv penetration) you will not burn. On a cloudy day when the visible spectrum is blocked you will be burnt by the uv penetrating the atmosphere.
        Herb

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Herb, are you being paid to be stupid?

        First you claimed that the atmosphere absorbed most of solar. Next, you started claiming that solar was heating the surface, with sunburn as one of your desperate examples.

        You’re all over the board. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You just mix together random bits of info, somehow hoping you can appear lucid and informed.

        You fail.

        Find a graph of the solar spectrum at Earth’s surface. It’s not hard to find. Then consider the area under the curve for visible wavelengths up to about 1 μ. You will find the greatest energy in that portion of the spectrum, NOT in the UV portion.

        Will you learn, or will you just return with more of your nonsense?

        I know which one I’d bet my money on….

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Geran,
        Look at the spectrum of electromagnetic waves emitted by the sun. The visible light is a very small portion. The shorter the wavelength the greater the energy of the light. The short wave lengths are not reaching the surface of the Earth because they are being absorbed by the gas molecules in the atmosphere. The visible light reaches the surface of the Earth because it is not being absorbed. The greatest amount of energy coming from the sun is being absorbed in the atmosphere not the surface of the Earth. Get a brain.
        Herb

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Well, I would have won the bet! Herb returns with more of his nonsense.

        Hilarious!

        Herb, it’s always hard to try to figure out where clowns get so confused. But, I’m guessing you are confusing the amount of energy in a UV photon with the amount of UV energy in the solar spectrum arriving Earth. UV photons contain more energy than visible and IR photons, you got that right. But the UV energy in the total spectrum is much less that of visible and IR.

        Again, you have to consider the area under the curve, which represents the total energy.

        But, you appear unable to learn. That’s not a surprise, there are several like you….

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Herb, you might benefit by purchasing a handheld IR thermometer. They are inexpensive ($60). It will give you an understanding of atmospheric temperatures. This morning’s results:

        Directly overhead –> -61.6 ºF (-52 ºC)
        Ground –> 37.0 ºF (2.8 ºC)

        Only the uninformed would believe the sky can heat the surface.

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi JD,
        What exactly are you measuring? Infrared decreases as the square of the distance. When you point your infrared thermometer up are you measuring heat coming from gas molecules close to you or hotter molecules further from you? Does the thermometer record the total heat it absorbs and the number of molecules radiating that heat? How does it distinguish between some molecules close to it radiating heat and fewer more distant hotter molecules radiating heat? How does it give you the kinetic energy of the molecules without knowing their distance and number? Objects radiate energy not temperature. A thermometer will say that 100 C water and 100 C steam are radiating the same heat but the molecules do not have the same kinetic energy.
        Herb

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        JDHuffman
        Only the uninformed would believe the sky can heat the surface.

        James McGinn
        Nonsense. You morons can’t follow a simple explanation No matter how many times this is explained you keep making the same subtle error.

        Pay attention:
        All matter heats all matter constantly. All matter radiates constantly and all other matter absorbs constantly.

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Herb, an IR thermometer measures the average energy in the photons entering. It’s analogous to a thermometer measuring the average energy of the molecules touching it.

        That’s why you should purchase one, and learn about it. Reality is a good place to be.

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Poor James has no idea how stupid he sounds: “All matter heats all matter constantly.”

        Believing that, he then has to believe that houses all burn down! They heat themselves until they catch fire!

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi JD,
        I know of no thermometer that counts the molecules transferring energy to it or is equipped with a calculator to determine the average. They are designed with a fixed area to be exposed to the medium being measured. If the whole area is not exposed or there are fewer molecules striking the area 9a gas) it becomes inaccurate. Instead of submerging just the bulb of a thermometer in boiling water expose some of the body exposing more of the mercury to the water. The mercury will expand more and your thermometer will read a temperature of over 100 C even though the average kinetic energy of the molecules hasn’t changed. The molecules in 0 C ice are locked in a crystal with little movement while the molecules of 0 C water move. You say they have the same energy. I will put my hand in a 100 C oven and you put your hand in 100 C water then type your results if you can still type.
        You accept definitions without thought.

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Herb, you seem to be confusing “enthalpy” with “temperature”. That’s likely because you’ve never understood physics.

        But to deny thermometers record temperature, that is just avoiding reality to suit your false beliefs.

        Nothing new.

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        JDHuffman
        Poor James has no idea how stupid he sounds: “All matter heats all matter constantly.”

        James McGinn:
        Heat travels in all directions constantly, moron. It is temperature increase that only goes from hotter to colder. You ideologically motivated morons don’t have the intellect to distinguish between these two VERY DIFFERENT things.

        The laws of thermodynamics clearly and indisputably have to do with net heat flow and with the measured temperature.

        You morons can’t grasp the subtle fact that the words “heat” or “heating” can be interpreted ambiguously. (Do you know what the concept of ambiguity is? The frickin look it up, moron.) Heating does not necessarily imply/require increase in measured temperature.

        This has been explalned you to slayer morons over and frickin over again.

        James McGinn / Genius
        https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Fifth-Episode-Why-Meteorologists-Will-Not-Discuss-or-Debate-Their-Convection-Model-of-Storm-Theory-e9a20l

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Herb, were you able to understand the link showing the solar spectrum at Earth’s surface? You know, the spectrum that proves you wrong?

        Did you understand it, or do you prefer clinging to your false beliefs?

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        JDHuffman, James is just upset because his house burned down when he was baking his turkey with ice cubes…too much “heating”!

      • Avatar

        Herg Rose

        |

        Hi Geran,
        Yes I saw it and it showed that most of the high energy uv radiated from the sun is absorbed in the Earth’s atmosphere and does not reach the surface of the Earth.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Well Herg, I guess that means you prefer clinging to your false beliefs.

        Hilarious.

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Geran
        Well Herg, I guess that means you prefer clinging to your false beliefs.

        James:
        Convoluted moron. You got nothing!!!

        James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
        These principles prevented me from making the common error of casually assuming that the molecular composition of tornadoes was the same as that of air and/or moist air. I’ve encountered a number of other tornado theorists and it is very common for them to casually assume that a tornado is just fast spinning air. They don’t take into account the fact that the sheath needed to possess the ability to resist itself from casually mixing with the surrounding air molecules. In other words, my principles of entitiness allowed me to realize that tornadoes could not persist as entities if the molecules that comprise the sheath of the tornado did not possess some kind of internal resilience greater than that of just air. Otherwise the molecules in the sheath would casually mix with those outside the sheath and the tornado would not have persistence.

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        So what did we learn here?

        We learned that “Herg” opposes learning. He doesn’t believe in temperature measurement, and doesn’t want to learn.

        And James is as confused about heat transfer and thermodynamics as he is about the water molecule. But, he tries to make up for his inadequencies by calling himself a “genius”.

        James provided some fascinating quotes for us to remember:

        “All matter heats all matter constantly.” — James, “genius”

        “Heating does not necessarily imply/require increase in measured temperature.” — James, “genius”

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Huffman:
        So what did we learn here?

        McGinn:
        You morons refuse to use precise language. This is what happens when engineers try to pretend that they are scientists. You imbeciles can’t grasp the fact that the word “heating” is ambiguous and otherwise imprecise.

        Learn to use the english language moron.

        James McGinn / Genius
        https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn

        We learned that “Herg” opposes learning. He doesn’t believe in temperature measurement, and doesn’t want to learn.

        And James is as confused about heat transfer and thermodynamics as he is about the water molecule. But, he tries to make up for his inadequencies by calling himself a “genius”.

        James provided some fascinating quotes for us to remember:

        “All matter heats all matter constantly.” — James, “genius”

        “Heating does not necessarily imply/require increase in measured temperature.” — James, “genius”

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,
      “You Zoe Phin have no valid explanation for the required input of thermal energy needed to raise the surface temperatures of Earth and Venus on the sunlit side to observed global mean levels.”

      It’s geothermal, silly. Temperature (and THEN gravity) determines the amount of atmosphere and its pressure.

      I know you think it’s the other way around, but you’re wrong.

      The atmospheric thermal gradient is caused bottom up, not top down. If you understood 2nd LoT, you would realize the answer is geothermal.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,
      “that a location on its equator rises in temperature from about 732K to 737K”

      Those numbers are not for the surface.

      “how would sub-surface regions know night from day?”

      geothermal PLUS solar.

      “convective heat transfer”
      Convection only occurs bottom up. Only because the bottom is hotter will there be convection. Solar heats top-down and so there is no convection because irradiated molecules are less dense. Gravity would not allow less dense molecules to convect below more dense molcules. Don’t you realize how silly you’re idea is? Your math only works because of false attribution.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Doug,
        “Venus surface temperatures ARE 732K to 737K.”

        Complete lie. Cite your source.

        “The solar radiation getting through the Venus atmosphere to the surface is only about 20W/m^2 – that is, about one-eighth of what Earth receives. That radiation does NOT raise the surface temperature 5 degrees. It would need a radiative flux of at least 17,000W/m^2 to do that.”

        Silly, Venus’ geothermal provides the ~17,000 W/m^2. Can’t you read?

        “if you studied my papers.”

        I read all your papers. You are an idiot that has nothing to offer science.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug Cotton is a retarded crank and everybody knows it except him.

    “As I said, the direction is that which increases entropy and it has nothing to do with density.”

    Retard, the entropy formula is

    dQ/T

    Let’s say Q comes from the sun. Temperature increases as you descend to Earth’s core.

    There is no magical way to increase Q, and as T increases, Entropy DECREASES. Therefore Cotton’s idea is retarded and self-refuting.

    However, if we reverse things, and say Q mostly comes from geothermal, and T decreases as you ascend,

    Entropy (dQ/T) is then INCREASING as you ascend from the core.

    Therefore geothermal is key, and the sun adds to that.

    Look how he mocks my convection truth. Cotton doesn’t know that there’s no convection of gases in a liquid if they’re heated top-down. He can’t show one scientific example of his B.S.. However, bottom-up heating does produce convection.

    “But in the early pre-dawn hours convection stops (and starts to reverse in direction) even though the temperature gradient is still non-zero.”

    Blah blah. Here’s a typical morning situation:

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780123982568000049-f04-09-9780123982568.jpg

    You see? The reason there is an inversion to begin with is because you are precisely WRONG. Had your theory worked the top would have heated the bottom and there would have been no inversion that could have formed. Worst case scenario would have been isothermal. You offered great proof why you’re wrong.

    In the morning, when the sun comes out, bottom-up heating begins.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    Loshmidt explained why it gets colder as you move up the troposphere. He did not even attempt to stupidly claim that temperature increases as you move down the atmosphere.
    You reverse causality.

    The sun supplies the dQ, and for “maximum entropy production” temperature must DECREASE, because

    Entropy = dQ/T

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,
      You don’t even provide an expression for entropy, because any such math would show you to be wrong. Your paper consists of B.S. and then claims you proved your point, when you did no such thing.

      At best your paper explains why it gets colder as you move up the troposphere. Nothing new.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,
      “which nobody has proven wrong”
      I’ve proved it wrong. You just can see it and acknowledge it, because you’re a crackpot – and everybody knows it.

  • Avatar

    Michael Clarke

    |

    Hi Doug and Zoe, You are both part right and part wrong.
    When I went to school I learned that the Sun shines.
    When I went to school I learned that planets rotate.
    When I went to school I learned that the solar system has been stable for a few billion years.
    When I went to school I understood this to mean that energy in from the sun had to equal energy out.
    When I went to school I understood that any internal heat source required extra outgoing energy, over and above that which the sun provided.
    When I went to school, some 65 years ago I understood that equilibrium was what ‘Nature’ sought to establish.
    End of lecture.
    Michael Logician

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Michael,
      Energy in and out from the sun is not enough to explain what we observe. Earth has its own internal energy that it can emit, and this has nothing to do with sun’s in and out.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Doug,
        I have refuted the silly milliwatts idea countless times here at PSI. For example, my comments here:

        https://principia-scientific.org/show-me-now-direct-proof/

        Basically, you’re commiting the heat flux fallacy:

        https://i.ibb.co/YhNq3Jq/postmafallacy.png

        You are looking at “q”, but that’s not geothermal emission at the surface!

        In fact, the smaller the q, the hotter the surface! If q was ZERO between Earth’s core and the surface, the surface would be over 5000°C!

        Do the math, and understand the difference between “q” and what geothermal emission actually is: sigma*Tcold^4

        “The solar radiation reaching the surface of Venus is less than 20W/m² dear Zoe.”

        I thought it was ~150 W/m^2. Doesn’t matter because I asked you to prove your 732K to 737K diurnal surface fluctuation claim. Still no evidence!

        “The solar radiation reaching the Moon’s surface has a mean about twice what Earth’s surface receives, but the mean surface temperature for the Moon is well below zero C.”

        A huge clue that the moon has a much smaller “geo”thermal heat source.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Doug is an imbecile.

        “On Earth the flow of energy out of the surface is less than 0.1 W/m²”

        That is incorrect. That 0.1 W/m^2 is the conductive heat flux inside the earth, but that is not the level of radiation that escapes out.

        Conductive Heat Flux:
        q/A = k(Thot-Tcold)/L

        Radiation out of medium:
        sigma*Tcold^4

        It’s easy to quote numbers when you don’t know what they mean, Doug.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Doug,

          “The < 0.1 W/m² was obviously the rate at which thermal energy is measured (in hundreds of measurements) as exiting the sub-surface regions by conduction in the outer crust. It is measured by comparing temperatures at different depths in boreholes. The radiative flux from the surface is about 390W/m² and so the geothermal contribution is about 1/4000th of that! ”

          Completely incorrect. Here’s a simple conduction problem:

          https://image.slidesharecdn.com/heattransfer5thed-incroperaanddewitt-150417092349-conversion-gate01/95/heat-transfer-5th-ed-solution-manual-incropera-and-dewitt-1-638.jpg?cb=1429262799

          As you can see the conductive heat flux is:

          q/A = 3kW/10 m^2 = 300 W/m^2

          Yet this figure is not the radiation that would emerge from this wall. To find that out we apply:

          sigma * Tcold^4 = 5.67e-8 * 378^4 = 1158 W/m^2

          You see? You understand?

          You’re quoting the irrelevant conductive heat flux and then believe this is what emerges out of the ground. WRONG!

          Conduction:
          q = kA(Thot-Tcold)/L

          (q/A)*L/k = Thot – Tcold

          Tcold = Thot – ( (q/A)*k/L )

          Emergent radiation:
          sigma * Tcold^4

          sigma * ( Thot – ( (q/A)*k/L ) )^4

          The 91 milliwatts you are referring to is the conductive q/A value. That is not what emerges from the medium.

          What is it that you don’t understand?

          The earth GEOTHERMALLY emits:

          sigma * ( Thot – ( (q/A)*k/L ) )^4

          NOT q/A

          Tu comprende?

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Doug,

          “MY POINT WAS JUST THAT THE MOLECULES DON’T RUN OUT OF KINETIC ENERGY IN THE TROPOSPHERE.”

          I never made such a claim, filthy liar. All I said was it takes kinetic energy to raise molecules (by conversion to potential energy). Nothing about running out.

          “Then you make a big issue about how accurate was my estimate of molecular velocity in the upper troposphere.”

          That too is a lie. I made no issue of your numbers. I made issue of your idea that GPE+KE=constant. I used real numbers and showed that to be false.

          You are very disingenuous person.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Oops, I accidently flipped k and L.

          It should be:

          sigma * ( Thot – ( (q/A)*L/k) )^4

          Not

          sigma * ( Thot – ( (q/A)*k/L ) )^4

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Doug,
        “So Zoe, you don’t even seem to know that the theoretical “dry” lapse rate (-9.8 K/Km) is NOT the environmental lapse rate which is more like -6 to -7 K/Km”

        I use 0.0065°C/m
        You could easily see that, if you weren’t blind.

        You’re lucky that most of our conversation here was erased. You left so many unanswered criticisms of your crackpot theory.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Doug,
        “(gravitational potential energy) + (kinetic energy) = constant”

        I provided evidence that this was not the case using standard atmsophere values. It was deleted. Now you provide numbers proving what you claim!

  • Avatar

    George Cross

    |

    Her BoB must be solar powered and only 25% efficient. <:o)

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    “a disturbance brought about by absorption of solar energy near the top of the troposphere will result in downward natural (or “free”) convective heat transfer, surprisingly from cooler to warmer regions.”

    Uhuh, you keep saying that but you offer no proof. The irradiated less dense molecules will not convect below the more dense molecules.

    If you were correct there would be NO INVERSIONS. Yet there are inversions precisely because the top doesn’t heat the bottom. When then sun comes out, the bottom heats the top.

    But thanks for fighting against backradiation. This doesn’t fully excuse your silly backconvection theory.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,

      “The proof is in my paper that you don’t deign to read dear Zoe.”

      Oh please, go eff yourself, Doug. I’ve read your paper. You’re an idiot, Doug.

      “Be the first to prove it wrong for US $10,000.”

      Yeah, right, no one believes you. You would never acknowledge someone refuted you.

      “WHY entropy would be increasing,”

      Doug, it takes energy to raise molecules high off the ground. Having done this, there is no extra energy to extract from this! It’s the temperature that determines atmospheric pressure. Entropy increases as you move bottom-up, not top-down as you claim.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,
      You ignore my criticisms and just repeat the same patterns of B.S. You remind me of Democrats’ allegations against Trump. Answer my criticsm without using the same language patterns, you evasive piece of …

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    92 milliwatts is the heat flux using one verticap meter as the standard, i.e. the “k” value is in units W/(m K). If you used the SAME STANDARD for the sun passing through 1 vertical meter of the atmosphere, the result is 0.16 milloWatts. You’re comparing oranges to apple seeds, but you’re too stupid to realize it.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,

      “Garbage. Both the 91.6 milliwatts and the 168 watts relate to one square metre of the surface on average.”

      Doug, I challenge you to solve a simple problem. If you can’t do it, then you’re not qualified to do science, and you will have to shut up forever. Agree?

      You have a metal bar. It is heated on one side to 1010°C. Only normal flow is allowed (no leakage to the sides).

      k = 1, A = 1, L = 10

      How much is emitted from the cold side, in W/m^2.

      If you refuse to solve this problem, you will have to concede defeat and give $10,000 to the charity of my choice.

      No excuses. Go!

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    “As only KE determines temperature, there is thus a non-zero temperature gradient (warmer at the base) in this state of maximum entropy”

    Entropy = dQ/T

    T being maximum means Entropy is smallest at the surface. As you move up the troposphere, entropy is increased. You got it exactly backwards.

    Let’s take a look:

    https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/0d67252eebdfc152bde459adb05027b24403fd03/8-Figure5-1.png

    Look! You’re 100% wrong. Will you acknowledge it? Of course not!

    You’re a crank, and cranks crank. That’s all they can do. Keep on cranking, crank!

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    “(gravitational potential energy) + (kinetic energy) = constant”

    Are you saying
    mgh + 1/2mv^2 = constant ?

    Let’s see:
    Let’s say m = 1 kg

    1800 km/hr = 500 m/s
    1400 km/hr = 389 m/s

    For height = 11,000 meters, g = 9.81

    gh =
    107,910

    1/2v^2 = 1/2 (389) ^ 2 = 75,661

    So for h=11,000, we get:

    107,910 + 75,661 = constant (183,571)

    For h = 0, we just get:

    1/2 (500) ^ 2 = constant (125,000)

    Hilarious!!! Your constant are not equal.

    You never sanity checked your B.S, did you?
    You just like to use grandious statements like 2nd LoT, Entropy, Loschmist, blah blah blah.

    A good scientist has different ways to explain the same thing, but not you. You always say the same things over and over again. Nothing you say proves what you claim, but that doesn’t stop you at all. And that’s a big clue that I’m talking to a crank.

    “it is solar energy that maintains the temperatures from the core to TOA of all planets and satellite moons in the Solar System.”

    Hilarious. Yes, that’s your axiom, and the rest is B.S. to “prove” your assumption. What utter drivel.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    “The condition (GPE + KE) = constant is REQUIRED for thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Then, from that condition (maximum entropy) we argue that, as a small mass m of argon moves down through a distance dH it will lose gravitational potential energy of m.g.dH where g is the acceleration due to gravity. The energy will be converted to kinetic energy and that energy will be the amount required to raise the temperature of that mass m by dT. Then, from the definition of specific heat (Cp) the energy is m.Cp.dT.

    So m.Cp.dT = -m.g.dH

    and hence the gradient …

    dT/dH = – g/Cp”

    Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2, Doug. I don’t see you proving what you claim!

    You’re not explaining the temperature at the bottom. You’re just reversing causality from bottom-up cooling to top-down heating.

    Cp is the heat capacity. You need to fill it with some heat source. You can’t assume it’s magically filled.

    Why don’t you learn some physics?

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/Maxdev.html#c1

    “Molecules which are higher in the atmosphere are there ultimately because they had a higher kinetic energy to convert into gravitational potential energy on some time scale.”

    That’s reality. Now you want to take the GPE that was converted (taken away) from KE, and add it back to KE … while at the same time keeping the atmosphere aloft.

    You are a crackpot, Doug.

    Have you seen my new article out today?
    https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/04/the-case-of-two-different-fluxes/

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,
      Gou really are a retard!

      “Are you not aware that when an object “falls” in a vacuum its PE is converted into equivalent KE?”

      Are you aware that the atmosphere didn’t fall? Are you aware that it didn’t fall because KE is converted to PE?

      “My calculations lead to the long-accepted -g/Cp expression for the “dry adiabatic lapse rate” ”

      Yes, and thermal causality of this lapse rate is bottom up not top down, idiot.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug
    “My trusty online Stefan-Boltzmann calculator says that would be the flux from a blackbody at 378.0344469959348 K (or about 105C)”

    Yes, Doug, the textbook example shows that T2 is indeed 378K. Are you retarded? Clearly yes.

    “My 2013 paper explains what it is that reduces the gradient on Earth from the theoretical “dry” one of -9.8 K/Km to about -6 to -7 K/Km. That is the reason you got different values Dear Zoe, but it is apparently beyond your ability to comprehend since I have told you three times now.”

    Gee, Doug you don’t show any calculations at all. It must be because they don’t support you. Maybe I’m wrong, but I won’t waste time. Why don’t you show me what you claim?

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,

      “You talk garbage Zoe. Whether it is T1 or T2 there is nothing that is 105C. ”

      Doug is now challenging textbook physics. LMAO. What a ridiculuous and pitiful excuse for a man.

      And then he posts his usual spam …

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,

    “we can work out how much energy was used to raise the temperature of an object (or a small region of gas) by a certain amount if we know the specific heat. Apparently the expression m.Cp.dT didn’t ring a bell or she could not think about the obvious fact that the expression represents the amount of energy that was used to raise the temperature and she did not twig that the kinetic energy that did this came from the original potential energy.”

    Hey, asshole, you were asked to prove that KE+PE = constant, and yet all you did was show that m Cp dT + mgh = ZERO.

    Are the two equivalent? No, you pathetic vermin.

    The atmosphere did not fall to produce KE. KE is determined by insolational and geothermal, and some of that KE is converted to PE in the atmospheric uplifting process. How much insolation and geothermal there is determines KE and PE – the height of our atmosphere. You got everything backwards but you’re too stupid to realize it.

    You’re math assumes an implicit conversion of all PE to KE, which leaves no room for any KE in your math, which means you can’t determine surface temperatures. All you did was start with surface temperatures, have it diffuse by lapse rate and then claim everything happens backwards, from cold to hot.

    You are nothing but a retarded spammer.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,

    “It relates to a LOCAL REGION at roughly the same temperature, not to regions that are kilometres different in their altitudes because other factors such as new absorption of solar radiation affect temperature,”

    Your job was to explain why the surface is so much hotter than insolation alone allows, and all you can do is use a local region with little T variation? What? You are seriously mentally ill.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,

    “Hence GPE increases by 9.8 and KE decreases by 9.8 and so (GPE+KE) = constant.:

    You are showing dPE-dKE=0, not PE+KE=constant. If your constant is zero, why didn’t you say that a long time ago?

    And most importantly, you’re now arguing my point!!! Yes, KE decreased and PE increases, lifting the molecules into the atmosphere! LMAO

    You just explained how the atmosphere cools the surface by acting as a giant heat sink.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,

      But you forget …

      Case 1:

      GPE = 17x
      KE= 49y
      Constant = 17x+49y

      Case 2:

      GPE=17x+9.8
      KE=49y-9.8
      GPE+KE = (17x+9.8) + (49y-9.8) = 17x+49y = the same Constant as in Case 1

      With infinite possibilities of being “right”, your drivel is scientifically worthless.

      QED

      Gosh, you’re pathetic.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    Right, the Earth is like a fast spinning cylinder. The faster the Earth spins, the more compaction there is at the surface, oh no wait, the faster the earth spins the more flies off. Don’t confuse simulated gravity with the real thing, idiot. The Earth is not a cylinder with gas inside it, Jeez!

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,
      Your vortex is compressing the gases to the wall. Naturally that would be the warmest spot, and the internal lapse rate would be thermodynamically causative from the wall towards center, not vice versa as you had to prove.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Doug,
        Who said anything about a piston? You keep changing your B.S., a clear sign that it’s B.S.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,

    “There is no “geothermal” energy keeping the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of this distant planet at 320K…that is the end of your extraordinary claims that some endless supply of newly created underground source of thermal energy is sufficient to maintain such temperatures as 320K (hotter than Earth’s surface) because there is no solid surface there. There is only a small solid core 55% the mass of Earth a few thousand kilometers further down below the 320K region at the base of the nominal troposphere.”

    LMAO. Then that 320K is obviously not the base of the troposphere. The definition of the base of a troposphere is where the surface meets the atmosphere. This means the surface is much lower (as you claim), and Uranus’ geothermal supply is much greater than 320K. In fact we receive fragments of radiation indicating 3000+K in spectral bands that don’t come from Uranus’ gases. Remember, only solids can send BB radiation. They don’t originate from any “falling atmosphere” that is still obviously there. You are a quack that can’t think. So funny.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,
      There is no gas below the base of the troposphere. It’s either liquid or solid. Regardless, it’s heated from below.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,

      “are maintained at the existing temperatures by solar energy that has made its way up the thermal gradient by molecular collision processes (thermal diffusion and conduction) from where it was absorbed at the radiating altitude in the troposphere or even nearer to the top of the atmosphere”

      Nonsense. Nothing goes from colder to hotter and makes it even hotter. Not backradiation, not backconduction, and certainly not backconvection – which can’t even take place because the “hotter” (which they have to be if you’re implying too down heating) top molecules can’t descend below to cooler lower molecules due to density issue.

      In a conductive metal heat bar, the farther side is always cooler than the heated side. It’s not even isothermal, but then you go one step farther and claim that farside will get hotter than the near side. LOL.

      Q = m.Cp.dT

      As heat descends down the atmosphere in your model, m is increased, therefore dT is reduced and reduced.

      This is what happens in a conductive metal bar. As heat spreads to more mass, the farther side gets colder and colder.

      You are an unbelievable crank.

      “This is the mind-boggling new 21st century paradigm which the world will gradually learn about over the next 5, 10 or maybe 20 years.”

      A lobotomy is mind-boggling too. In that time frame you will become a laughing stock, except to new fools that you sway.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Doug,

        “The Second Law of Thermodynamics says nothing about temperature and there is a reason for that.

        “Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.”

        Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

        Sorry, I’m only hear to discuss physics. What I have written is correct and you haven’t even studied it to find out why. Many now know my paper is correct.”

        And entropy is Q/T. But according to you, T is not involved.

        LMAO!!! What an imbecile.

        “What source of new energy keeps the core of the Moon at a temperature more than 1,000 degrees hotter than the hottest region on its surface.”

        The initial cosmic lightning bolt that formed the moon. The moon is an infrared star, just like the sun is a UV/light star.

        “How is your “geothermal” energy created in liquid regions of Uranus but never detected with any excess loss of energy at top of atmosphere?”

        Same way the Earth only looks like ~240 W/m^2 from space, even though its hotter below the middle troposphere. You can’t see hot behind a fog of cold, but mind you, that cold would be colder without hot.

        “Is the core of the Moon or the liquid in Uranus or Jupiter generating an endless (and huge) supply of energy fr greater than the solar radiation reaching the base of the troposphere?”

        Not for the Moon, but others, YES!
        Some is genetated by nuclear decay and some is there since formation event.

        Now you’re jumping to Jupiter? Jeez

        Doug, if you dug a borehole down to where it’s 105C. How much would that borehole be emitting into the atmosphere?

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,
      “whereas the solid core is smaller than Earth and, as I said, thousands of kilometres below the base of the nominal troposphere. The diameter of that planet is over 51,000 Km.”

      So what? Earth’s core is 1000s of kilometers below the troposphere.

      Google:
      “Core: Uranus has a molten rocky core about 10,500 miles (17,000 km) in diameter and about 12,500°F (6927°C). This core may have a mass five times greater than the mass of the Earth.”

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Doug,
        “It’s funny how your sub-surface regions “know” how to make the surface warmer at the equator than in polar regions and how they “know” the seasons up above.”

        Imbecile, who said geothermal had to be equal at poles and equator.

        In case you haven’t noticed, the warmest geothermal regions are in the subtropics, which explains why there are deserts there, idiot.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Doug,
        “There is no thermal energy escaping from the core of Uranus because measurements at TOA show that to be the case. So core energy is not what is warming the base of the nominal troposphere to 320K: Heat creep is.”

        If you look head on to the cold side of a conductive metal bar, you won’t see the hot side at all. According to you then, cold heats hot.

        This is the 3rd time I attempt to teach you physics, and you ignore it.

      • Avatar

        me_again_for_2nd_time

        |

        Yes, 6927°C is the temperature supported primarily by heat creep in the core of Uranus. There is no thermal energy escaping from the core of Uranus because measurements at TOA show that to be the case. So core energy is not what is warming the base of the nominal troposphere to 320K: Heat creep is.

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    When idiots argue they recognize that the other person is an idiot and point it out but they don’t see that the other person is also right.

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Herb, Yes, it is best not to feed the troll.He will never learn from you. He believes his ‘genius’ should be apparent to all yet he cannot get his crackpot theory published in any peer reviewed journal> But he is so obsessed with PSI he has wasted years of his life desperately seeking our approval by unrelenting spamming. Total wack job!

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Doug,

        “Where is Zoe Phin’s paper claiming radioactive decay raises the surface temperature to about 55 degrees above the -40C that the Sun’s direct radiation could achieve? (LOL)”

        I actually said there were two causes:
        Nuclear decay and initial formation energy.

        “About 50% of the heat given off by the Earth is generated by the radioactive decay of elements such as uranium and thorium, and their decay products. That is the conclusion of an international team of physicists that has used the KamLAND detector in Japan to measure the flux of antineutrinos emanating from deep within the Earth. The result, which agrees with previous calculations of the radioactive heating, should help physicists to improve models of how heat is generated in the Earth.”

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Doug
          Your heat creep idea would mean that mercury should be the hottest planet, venus 2nd, earth 3rd, …

          False.

          Everything above 5km is dominated by the sun, but below that geothermal > solar. Why compare at TOA?

          The sun has no effect on boreholes beyond first 10 meters. That’s the only creep that can be proved. Everything below 10 meters is purely generated from the earth.

      • Avatar

        me_again_for_4th_time

        |

        It is time, John O’Sullivan that you and I had a scientific discussion as distinct from your attempts to smear me with words like “crackpot” and “desperately” which are water off a duck’s back.
        The process of downward natural (or “free” as physicists call it) convective heat transfer is happening. I have proved from the definition of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” it is indeed increasing entropy and that is why it happens.
        Evidence in vortex cooling tubes and throughout the Solar System confirms that force fields create temperature gradients at the molecular level (as Josef Loschmidt explained in 1876 and he was right) and this enables the above heat transfer to occur. It MUST occur in order for us to have an explanation for temperatures and the necessary heat in all planets and satellite moons.
        My hypothesis is consistent with the evidence on all planets: nothing else that PSI has ever published is.
        My 2013 paper that you rejected because some PSI members assertively said it was wrong without ever proving it was, is now on the websites listed below where it has been read by many thousands without a single reader ever proving it wrong. This represents “Peer Review in Open Media” (PROM) in the extreme. And you know full well that none of your authors can get their papers published in climatology-backing journals.
        I have on several occasions invited you to have some physicist of your choice write you an article attempting to refute my paper, provided that the reviewer actually reads and understands what the “heat creep” diagrams are depicting. So I throw down the gauntlet and I expect the right to have my comments on that thread not deleted.
        My paper is at …
        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
        https://www.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871/detail/recent-activity/documents/
        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
        http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf
        One has to qualify as a scientist to be able to publish on Researchgate.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Imbecile,
          It is increased temperature that increases entropy.
          It is is increased temperature that causes CO2 to absorb more.

          You have things backwards just like the alarmists. Entropy is a state, not a cause.

      • Avatar

        me_again

        |

        So, Zoe, it’s funny how your sub-surface regions “know” how to make the surface warmer at the equator than in polar regions and how they “know” the seasons up above. Oh, and there’s no evidence at top of atmosphere of the magical energy that geothermal activity generates out of mass. Pity! You might otherwise have convinced those like journalist John O’Sullivan who, like you, has no idea as to how and when maximum entropy is reached.

        Now answer my questions about entropy, repeated for the fourth time:

        Q.1 What have you learned from Figure 4? http://entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html

        Q.2 When a small meteorite is in Space heading towards Earth under the pull of Earth’s gravity and it is neither warming nor cooling is entropy (a) decreasing (b) increasing or (c) staying the same?

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    That’s your belief, Doug.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Doug,
      You missed the point. The wall of the cylinder is what is supplying heat. That is where you will find the warmest molecules. The spinning of the vortex does not raise the temperature further due to compression. There might be some frictional increase, though.

      Just like a conductive metal bar is hottest at the heated side …

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    Uhh, there’s cooling from the wall towards the inside. You had to prove the opposite. Do you not understand what it is you have to prove? Clearly.

    I don’t know if there’s any friction at the wall to the outside, but it’s possible that if there was, there would be some warming from it.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      The atmosphere isn’t falling, Doug. ~Half is going down, and ~Half is going up – but there is no net fall.

      The reason we have an atmosphere is because kinetic energy is converted to potential energy.

      You said it yourself:
      “Hence GPE increases by 9.8 and KE decreases by 9.8”

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    If you look head on towards the cold side of a conductive metal bar, there is no evidence that there is anything heating it at all. If the cold side is at room temperature and the hot side is 100C, you see “nothing”. Furthermore, the room isn’t heating the hotside to 100C, as your theory would suggest.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Doug,
    There is also no evidence @TOA that the Earth has a >5000C core. According to you, it can’t exist then.

  • Avatar

    me_again

    |

    What I write is CORRECT atmospheric PHYSICS. Intelligent people realise this …

    “Great work! Thanks a lot for sharing the details.”
    Dr Bakshi Hardeep Vaid
    Professor at Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, China.

    “Excellent article….”
    Shanti Das Bhattacharjee
    Head(Chem & Env ) Tata Power ,Jamshedpur. Chartered Engineer (India) Fellow- Institution of Engineers(India)

    “Thanks a lot, Douglas.
    Thermodynamics rules, as usually.”
    Vladimir Popov
    Senior Infrastructure Engineer at ASG Group

    These comments were regarding my article viewed by over 750 and liked by 22 at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cogent-irrefutable-reasons-why-carbon-dioxide-cannot-warm-cotton/?trackingId=5EoMZbscT2e05lCRjUzx8w%3D%3D

Comments are closed