My reply:
So-called renewable energy (solar and wind power) are tragic boondoggles that promise only to leave our children starving and freezing or boiling amid huge junkyards of toxic solar panels and wind turbines.
Here is my free golden treasure of links proving the worthlessness of renewable energy:
http://www.historyscoper.com/whyarewenotswitching.html
The big haha is that greenhouses can't exist because of thermal physics, because only the surfaces of the Sun and Earth are black body radiators that absorb and emit photons of all wavelengths, while Earth's atmosphere can never be, hence it can't stop Earth's surface from cooling off its daily solar heat, much less stop and reverse it. Too bad, I'm a lone voice crying in the wilderness that the emperor has no clothes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJv1IPNZQao
My reply:
Christy's understanding of thermal physics is at the 5th grader level. He still thinks that CO2's 15 micron radiation can affect Earth temperature. The truth is that only the surfaces of the Sun and Earth are black body radiators that absorb and emit photons of all wavelengths, while Earth's atmosphere can never be a black body, hence it can't stop the surface from cooling each day to rid itself of solar heat, much less stop and reverse it. Greenhouse gases are a pure fake physics hoax. Christy's career as a professor of atmospheric science is a waste from the starting gate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPHkCbeQNxI
My reply:
"Delicate balance between hot and cold". ROTFL.
My reply:
[[I can imagine so many experiments that would prove out this subsumation were it true, but the thing which proves this concept completely moot, is the room temperature bolometer... The (Tektronics) FLIR TG165 is sensitive in the range of CO2 global warming DOOM! 7.5–14 µm wavelength.]]
Here's the specs:
https://www.flir.com/products/tg165-x/?vertical=condition+monitoring&segment=solutions
Hmm... a killer refutation of my entire understanding of thermal physics. I'm bleeding... :)
[[This device apparently can measure to -25C: -25°C to 300°C (-13°F to 572°F). But cannot be operated below -10 C:-10°C to 45°C (14°F to 113°F)]]
Let's check their figures:
Radiation of a wavelength of 7.5 microns to 14 microns has a Planck blackbody peak power (Wien) temperature of 113.2C to -66.1C, according to this handy free online calculator:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
Here's what Wiki says:
"Some long-wave cameras require their detector to be cryogenically cooled, typically for several minutes before use, although some moderately sensitive infrared cameras do not require this. Many thermal imagers, including some forward-looking infrared cameras (such as some LWIR enhanced vision systems (EVS)) are also uncooled... Medium-wave (MWIR) cameras operate in the 3–5 μm range. These can see almost as well, since those frequencies are less affected by water-vapor absorption, but generally require a more expensive sensor array, along with cryogenic cooling." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-looking_infrared
Back to you:
[[If the photons prevent an equal photon from being emitted by the warmer object as the cold photon is subsumed, you get exactly the same energy transfer as you do with classical thermodynamics.]]
Classical thermodynamics is the only kind. You claim there's another kind? It's the only branch of physics that will never be overturned. It says that a colder body can't raise the temperature of a hotter body by any means, including radiation. I'm not sure that subsuming photons is prohibited by the need to emit an equal photon since a hotter black body is continually emitting photons at that wavelength anyway, but that's all that reflection is, so who cares if a colder photon is reflected or absorbed and reemitted, it still can't raise the temperature of a hotter body. Why can't you accept that?
Wait! The FLIR meter is measuring the Planck blackbody radiation peak emitted from objects it's looking at which are at those low temperatures, meaning that it sees the spectrum and uses software to estimate the peak. Yes, the sensor can be hotter and still register those photons striking it, although its own temperature will increase the signal-to-noise ratio. Same principle as touching dry ice or holding your hands near it and feeling the cold. It's not sending its own photons to it, making your argument ridiculous, and since those photons can be arranged to travel mostly untouched through the lenses and clear air., even moist air, it strengthens my understanding not yours. Your diatribe actually has nothing to do with what you were trying to disprove, which is no surprise, because a killer refutation would require actual measurement of the sensor's quantum operation, which is prohibited by the quantum measurement problem.
[[The completely unfounded, unscientific concept still includes an electromagnetic rewrite of all of physics which is flatly stupid.]]
That's what you're doing, rewriting the Second Law to have a quantum level exception to push a you know what concept. Funny, that's what happened after the gigantic U.N. IPCC octopus took over and hijacked climate science to frame CO2 as causing global warming, otherwise the hoax would be too obvious to fool the unscientific and they'd have to be disbanded and find another hoax to push global Marxism.
Here's a peer-reviewed article explaining how black body radiation maximizes entropy increase, pulling the rug under the IPCC's feet:
https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IMECE/proceedings-abstract/IMECE2006/47640/217/320872
For laffers, here's a physics blog that has been trying to save the IPCC a little too hard, starting out with physicsts telling the 2nd Law like it is, only to be inundated by a bunch of IPCC trolls trying to muddy the waters. Where's your comments?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cooler-objects-able-to-increase-the-temperature-of-warmer-objects.932598/
BTW, you really should have sent your comments to the blog involved, Climate of Sophistry, which is run by an anti-IPCC astrophysicist who has had many battles with them that always end by them refusing to answer his objections and canceling him. This blog has a tiny readership, but it's one of a bunch of IPCC-owned blogs trying to tell truth to power, although admitted a few are run by scientific crackpots. Here's my cool free list, the most complete available:
www.historyscoper.com/climateblogs.html
In closing:
The bottom line is that all quantum effects are speculation, and that's all this blog article is. But why fix on this tiny point in my refounding of climate science freed of IPCC hijacking? Duh, what you really want is clearly to keep your claim going that CO2's 15 micron -80C thermal radiation can cause global warming, as if you're a paid IPCC shill. Sorry, you didn't defend them at all, but made me look more right by failing to directly disprove me with a direct theoretical scientific argument. Duh, and I know why: there isn't any. When will you give up, admit I'm right and help me get the IPCC shut down, the money train stopped and refunded, and all its fake climate scientists forced to get new careers while the global Marxists search for another hoax to push? When are you going to advertise my killer disproofs on your main page and in all your margins as the best use of your readers' time? Sorry, I'm not on Big Oil's payroll so you'd have to go totally amateur like moi.
I linked to the peer-reviewed blog establishing black body radiation increase because the entire IPCC house of cards is built on an alleged Earth-Sun energy balance, as if there's no such thing as entropy dispersion of energy into the heat death of the Universe when CO2 is concerned, which explains why satellite measurements of TOA Earth surface radiation shows a big notch at 15 microns. This is a macro-level law, not quantum level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(energy_dispersal)
You still insist that I'm a crackpot and that your IPCC gurus have the absolute truth from God on the subject of thermodynamics? Why don't you try the acid test of telling your favorite IPCC climate science about their 15 micron -80C problem and asking for a definitive scientific refutation? Watch them block you :)
Let me cut to the chase: The only quality time you'll ever spend studying real thermal physics until the IPCC falls is my cool free Internet pubs.
Start here:
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/10/22/why-i-laugh-at-the-sky/
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-say-no-net-heat-flow-between-two-objects-of-different-temperatures-but-not-no-heat-flow/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-ways-that-people-can-help-prevent-climate-change-without-changing-their-lifestyle-or-buying-new-things/answer/TL-Winslow
www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
Oops! I meant the detector measures a minimum peak not a maximum peak at the frigid temperature wavelength. It’s not absorbing energy and heating up. Same principle as detecting a hole in a sunlit landscape by the black spot.
---000---
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/10/22/why-i-laugh-at-the-sky/
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/10/21/ids-nth-law-of-thermobviousness/
My reply:
[[CO2 in the planetary atmosphere has a temperature. CO2 emits radiation, even cold CO2 does. This emission of energy (cooling) happens as stated by the second law of thermodynamics. If this atmospheric CO2 is warmer than than the near absolute zero temperature background radiation of the universe, the planet surface will be warmer than it would be without the CO2 radiation. The radiation impinges on a surface capable of absorbing radiation, therefore energy must transfer. This fact applies even if the planet surface is already warmer than the CO2 itself — which in the case of earth’s atmosphere, it is. The simple energy transfer is independent of the temperature DIFFERENCE of the emitting and receiving object, the NET energy transfer is not.
[[Photons are time-frozen objects. It’s not like the emitted IR photons remember the temperature of the object they come from and the one they are going to in order to make some kind of absorption decision at the moment of interaction.]]
Sorry, heat is a flow of energy from a hotter to a colder object. There is no "net flow" of energy both ways. This flow doesn't depend on the method, whether conduction, convection, or radiation. This is required by Nature's ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics. Too bad, the IPCC octopus pretends the Second Law doesn't apply to CO2 in order to push their global Marxist takeover attempt.
And yes, the photons themselves are just packets of energy, but the amount is dependent on the wavelength. It's the black body radiators that know precisely what photons are energetic enough to build up a receiving black body radiator to the exact same temperature, and the black body radiation curve of power vs. wavelength has a peak at which most of the photons are concentrated so that it can transmit heat energy by radiation. Heat is measured by what? Temperature. If a black body radiator emits its radiation onto a colder black body radiator, the latter will absorb the photons and slowly increase its temperature based on its heat capacity, but is itself radiating heat energy via its own black body radiation curve solely dependent on temperature independent of the material. When/if the two black bodies equalize temperatures, their radiation curves will also equalize, achieving equilibrium. The second black body can't keep raising its temperature higher than the first's. But not with the IPCC lie machine, which wants you to believe that while an iron rod chilled to -80C will cool anything it's in contact with down ultimately to -80C, this doesn't apply to CO2's "back radiation", whose photons are indistinguishable from the iron rod's main radiation.
The IPCC also denies the basis of the Second Law, namely, entropy. Only the surfaces of the Earth and Sun are black bodies that transfer energy in the form of heat. The atmosphere can only transmit the energy and maybe slow down its transmission with convection, evaporation, and precipitation while doing nothing to transmit its own energy in the form of heat anywhere. Of course the heat energy in gases is not in the internal energy density of solids and liquids which have chemical bonds, but in the kinetic energy of the bouncing molecules, with some molecules with the right electron dipoles able to capture and reemit individual photons at specific wavelengths, but never become a black body that can absorb and emit radiation at all wavelengths, after downshifting the emissions to satisfy entropy along a black body curve.
The biggest lie is to ignore or deny that energy transfer in the form of heat always increases entropy, which harmlessly disperses the energy into the heat death of the Universe, after which it can never cause heat or do work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(energy_dispersal)
"By definition, blackbody radiation is that radiation which produces the largest amount of entropy for a given quantity of energy." -
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6
The IPCC wants you to believe that every solar photon that reaches the surface ends up being reemitted at a longer wavelength to preserve some mystical Sun-Earth energy balance, ignoring the obvious fact that some of the solar energy ends up moving air to create wind and storms, driving a heat engine that trades heat energy for work, thus increasing entropy. The IPCC scientists all decided to ignore that Nature article long ago because they're kept cage hens working for Marxist politician scammers.
Photons have no temperature, thus aren't heat. Do the photons from a colder black body radiator bounce off surface of a hotter black body, get absorbed and immediately spit out, or just get dispersed by entropy? Here's the best answer I've seen, using the concept of chemical potential:
/“Between two objects, one warmer and one cooler, the chemical potential increases in the intervening space as one ascends the energy gradient from cooler to warmer object. Thus photons from the cooler object will be subsumed before they ever reach the warmer object because warmer objects have higher energy density at all wavelengths than cooler objects.” -Hyperphysics Fails at Basic Science, Logic, Reasoning, and Math (https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/11/17/hyperphysics-fails-at-basic-science-logic-reasoning-and-math/)
So where does the 15 micron CO2 radiation go? It doesn't reach the top of the atmosphere, as NASA satellites confirm. But that doesn't imply that they raise Earth surface temperature, it only confirms entropy dispersal of their energy.
Here's my cool free essay giving the killer disproof of "net heat flow":
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-say-no-net-heat-flow-between-two-objects-of-different-temperatures-but-not-no-heat-flow/answer/TL-Winslow
In parting, I quote the Ego, er, Id again:
[[This is how knowing something vs believing something works. Everything in science must fit, or it needs to be reconsidered.]]
Do it then.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/10/20/nearly-open-loop/#respond
My reply:
[[Earth’s climate response to all greenhouse gasses is nearly open loop. Only 33C of surface temperatures having been caused by greenhouse style gasses, the vast majority of which is di-Hydrogen Monoxide, a poisonous, lighter-than-air gas, and powerfully corrosive liquid that has something like 25 times more greenhouse effect than C02.]]
Water vapor is poisoner and corrisive, very funny. Sorry, all greenhouse gases are a fake physics hoax. It started with framing CO2 as evil so that global Marxist politicians who run the IPCC could make useful idiots of Western politicians who would be scared into bowing to their demands to tax CO2 emissions and ultimately destroy the fossil fuel industry along with all capitalism and economic growth to pave the way for a global Marxist police state, but after people began seeing through that hoax they came up with the H2O hoax.
H2O is a pure coolant for Earth's surface, starting with sucking large amounts of surface heat to evaporate, then rising to a frigid region of the atmosphere before falling back as precipitation, cooling it even more. Meanwhile clouds block sunlight from reaching the surface. Only ground fog can slow surface cooling at night until the next sunrise evaporates it.
The big joke is that CO2's fake 15 micron "back radiation" has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, which can't melt an ice cube.
The IPCC has hijacked climate science for political gain. The very idea of heat is a flow of energy from a hotter to a colder object. Heat is measured by temperature. In solid or liquid with chemical bonds, temperature is a measure of internal energy density. In gases temperature is a measure of mv^2 kinetic energy of the bouncing gas molecules.
Either way, the atmosphere is always colder than Earth's surface, making it impossible to reheat it with its own heat by any means. It goes even deeper than that. The Earth's atmosphere can never be a black body radiator like the surfaces of the Sun and Earth, meaning that the Earth radiates its heat at all wavelengths, while gas molecules can only absorb and reradiate individual photons at specific wavelength, therefore all greenhouse gas theories are moose hockey. The IPCC actually turns this backwards by claiming that the -80C problem only applies to black body radiators, and being a gas makes CO2 a second Sun in the sky.
Learn how to straighten out hijacked climate science and see through all their bloomin' onion of scams with my free online course:
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
Learn the history of global Marxism and how it was losing to capitalism until it seized on CO2 emissions as their golden ticket to foisting global Marxism with my free historyscope:
http://www.historyscoper.com/whatisthemeaning.html
Follow my Quora space for daily updates on the evolving situation free of IPCC influence: https://newrealclimatescience.quora.com/
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/10/20/
It's too bad the current brouhaha about CO2 is so narrowly focused. So what if a higher concentration in the atmosphere raises global average temps? If higher temps were accompanied by increased atmospheric moisture, it would even out around the world and turn it into a paradise planet, greening the deserts so that the teeming billions could be fed. Cold temperatures are inimical to life, not a goal of life.
Too bad, it might take a lot more CO2 than you think to really change the global weather, but not because it has any control over Earth's surface temperatures. In fact atmospheric CO2 can't melt an ice cube with its 15 micron main radiation wavelength that has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice (-78.5C).
Why do they call CO2 greenhouse gas? Because plants breathe it, and they pump it into greenhouses to help them grow and thrive. Polar regions and deserts look good in postcards, but who wants to live there. Meanwhile global pop. is zooming, so obviously the real answer is to pump more CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere to turn the Earth into a greenhouse, turning deserts both hot and cold into lush green crop-growing regions like 35 million years ago when the avg. global temp was 88F and the CO2 level was 1K parts per million (vs. 415 PPM today). So what if we lose some desert polar regions and even some yummy coastline, the adjustments will be inconvenient but temporary, but I prefer shirt-sleeve weather to Frosty the Snowman. How many arctic animals can't adapt to a warmer climate? What animal needs to live in ice and snow and wouldn't like a vacation to Tahiti? They can lose the fat, hair or feathers.
The real question is can we make and keep the global CO2/H20 levels high enough, and for how long? Sooner or later mass global starvation will become unstoppable if world pop. keeps climbing, and this is the way to forestall it, if we act soon enough. Don't give me them Malthusian objections, give me some CO2/H20 solutions. I like a paradise Earth in the possibility window.
So, while the world is debating the horrors, extent or lack thereof of global warming caused by CO2, let's engineer the CO2/H20 solution to making the Earth a warm temperate planet from pole to pole with no deserts or ice wastelands, allowing vastly more food to be grown and turning poor nations rich. I DON'T mean a planet with wild swings between super-hot summers and super-cold winters, but one that is warmer than now everywhere, but moister and greener, with a giant network of plant life helping to avoid extremes. Since CO2 and water vapor are the keys, and the paltry amounts in the atmosphere need to be increased as soon as possible to turn deserts green and get the warming process off to a good start, but the new levels have to be maintained permanently, I'm looking to remote Antarctica (which is really a sea) as the most promising source for unlimited CO2 and water vapor generation, given that noxious emissions (sulfur dioxide, etc.) can be controlled.
This blog is for posting news on the world climate situation, scientific and political, along with my own articles. I'm sure it will start out with hardly any interest or followers, but I'm hoping that it will attract the smartest people eventually and in the end I hope for a global consensus that if it can be done it must be done.
So what is the Antarctic Volcanoes Project? My working idea is that an international effort to reactivate as many volcanoes in Antarctica as possible in an ideal location for distributing the CO2/H20 will produce the best and most cost-effective results. Sorry, one-worlders, it won't give you a license to override and control any country's economy, but if your country is suffering from lack of food you will be too busy expanding farming to care. Hence until I think of or hear about a better way to increase world CO2/H20 levels, this is my pet project. If you are a scientist, please climb aboard my AVP Express and let's make it happen.
It Would Be Funny If It Were's So Sad
It would be funny it weren't so sad, but when the scientists say "greenhouse gas" they are using a malaprop. It should be greenhouse GLASS, because that's why a greenhouse stays warm, by glass walls stopping convection of air and trapping heat. Yes, CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, but not for heating purposes, only to help plants BREATHE. So the whole sucker's game of "greenhouse gas" must truly be for the purpose of stopping more vegetation from growing and feeding the teeming billions. Is that their true goal? Another blip on the horizon is the promise of melting permafrost releasing gigantic amounts of CO2 from the Arctic not Antarctic sector. Let's hope we at least get some more good CO2 that way.
Jan. 14, 2011. Good article on CO2 levels and global temps 30-40 million years ago
Aug. 31, 2011. Giant pipe and balloon to pump water into the sky in climate experiment
May 31, 2013. Scientists find that higher CO2 levels green arid regions
Mar. 30, 2015. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels causing boom in vegetation
Aug. 2015. 'Unprecedented' volcanic eruption released enough water vapor to heat Earth: report
Aug. 15, 2017. Scientists find 91 new volcanoes miles beneath Antarctica's thick ice sheet
How Much CO2 Do Volcanoes Emit?
Will a major volcanic eruption fix climate change? - James Matkin
Part of the heat is coming from beneath our feet
Did any volcanoes erupt in 2020?
T.L. Winslow (TLW, the Historyscoper (tm)
.jpg)
