Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

A musician arguing with an oceanographer about fluid mechanics ....

Yet another failed model...I would never call myself a musician...I never made a living playing music, and over the course of my long life can only be heard in about an hour of professionally recorded music. I have to fill my semi retirement with something and it may as well be something that I enjoy doing, and doesn't bother others...

Ever consider how many professionals play a musical instrument?...and play it quite well?

Assuming that a model is correct with no actual real world evidence to support it will lead you down the primrose path.

By the way...the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis as described by climate science hasn't changed in decades...even though it has littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions..the only change it has seen is an increase in the margin of error so as it invariably wanders further and further from reality, climate science can still claim it is within the margin of error..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A musician arguing with an oceanographer about fluid mechanics ....

Yet another failed model...I would never call myself a musician...I never made a living playing music, and over the course of my long life can only be heard in about an hour of professionally recorded music. I have to fill my semi retirement with something and it may as well be something that I enjoy doing, and doesn't bother others...

Ever consider how many professionals play a musical instrument?...and play it quite well?

Assuming that a model is correct with no actual real world evidence to support it will lead you down the primrose path.

By the way...the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis as described by climate science hasn't changed in decades...even though it has littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions..the only change it has seen is an increase in the margin of error so as it invariably wanders further and further from reality, climate science can still claim it is within the margin of error..

Assuming that a model is correct with no actual real world evidence to support it will lead you down the primrose path.

But enough about your, "no emitting at equilibrium" fantasy.

 

[ReinyDays]

By the way...the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis as described by climate science hasn't changed in decades...even though it has littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions..the only change it has seen is an increase in the margin of error so as it invariably wanders further and further from reality, climate science can still claim it is within the margin of error..

I'm fine if you want to deny the greenhouse effect, but now you have to tell us why the Earth's surface is 12ºC warmer than it would be without an atmosphere ... if you don't think you're responsible for this, then you're irresponsible ... adults call this a "lie of omission" ... withholding information for the purposes of deceit ... you're better than that, so why persist? ...

 

[SSDD]

By the way...the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis as described by climate science hasn't changed in decades...even though it has littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions..the only change it has seen is an increase in the margin of error so as it invariably wanders further and further from reality, climate science can still claim it is within the margin of error..

I'm fine if you want to deny the greenhouse effect, but now you have to tell us why the Earth's surface is 12ºC warmer than it would be without an atmosphere ... if you don't think you're responsible for this, then you're irresponsible ... adults call this a "lie of omission" ... withholding information for the purposes of deceit ... you're better than that, so why persist? ...

I have done it over and over...in this thread also...back towards the beginning. I haven't "omitted", or withheld anything. It is all there for anyone who cares to look. As I have already said, the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities and the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant beyond the contribution of each gas to the total mass of the atmosphere...

Here is a new review of the radiosonde data going back to the beginning something like 20 million data sets spanning seventy years and demonstrates clearly and convincingly that any radiative atmospheric effect; call it the greenhouse effect or whatever you like simply does not exist. The video is a bit on the long side, but for anyone interested in seeing the numerous, as of yet, untested paradigms that presently prevail in climate science put to the test, it is very interesting...One might wish that the speakers were a bit more accustomed to public speaking, but clearly they are far more comfortable doing the work as opposed to a media savvy fraud like michael man who is very cool on camera but lies with every breath he takes.

 

[Wuwei]

Here is a new review of the radiosonde data going back to the beginning something like 20 million data sets spanning seventy years and demonstrates clearly and convincingly that any radiative atmospheric effect; call it the greenhouse effect or whatever you like simply does not exist. The video is a bit on the long side, but for anyone interested in seeing the numerous, as of yet, untested paradigms that presently prevail in climate science put to the test, it is very interesting.

Up through about half way through the video the Connolly family develops an interesting perspective on looking at the data concerning the atmospheric height by considering density rather than temperature. This creates very neat piece-wise-linear sections that correspond to the atmospheric strata. A number of things can be inferred from that

However things fall apart with their invention of the concept they call “Pervection”.

At 44:17
The intention is a simple experiment that seems to be an example of pervection by sucking air through long tubing. That is just Avogadro's Law and not something that should have any other name. Any kid who has sucked soda through a straw has done that experiment.

At 47:23
They show the bouncing balls of “Newton' cradle” – an old problem for physics students that illustrate conservation of both momentum and energy. Their balls were supposed to represent atoms, but the balls were constrained to be largely colinear! Atoms in the atmosphere are chaotic, never colinear! Even then Connolly's first attempt was little chaotic because the balls were moving a bit.

They both think pervection should be used as a replacement for radiation in atmospheric physics. If you want to replace radiation with something else, just don't do it that way.

At 46:00
SUMMARY OF “PERVECTION” EXPERIMENT
Maximum rates of energy transmission by the known mechanisms:
• Conduction = 0.00015 Watts/m²
• Kinetic convection = 0.0000075 Watts/m²
• Enthalpic convection = 0.14 Watts/m²
• Radiation = 0.29 Watts/m²
• Acoustic transmission = 1.37 Watts/m² [Where does this come from?]

He says the Observed rate of energy transmission [Energy sucked through tube.] = 2400± 80 Watts/m².[That is a gross exaggeration to think that has anything to do with the atmosphere.]

“In this particular controlled experiment, the energy was not transmitted by conduction, convection, radiation or acoustic. Therefore, there is some other key energy transmission mechanism available for air”

It it should be called Avogadro's Law, not pervection.

However, note that he thinks radiation has a faster rate of transmission than conduction, convection, contrary to what many deniers think .

48:53
He agrees, “GHG's are IR active.”
“This means they absorb and emit at fixed wavelengths/frequencies”, (Einstein, 1916)
Rate of absorbtion equals the rate of emission If the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium you will not get a green house effect the gas will not store energy.

48:20
He says if you increase the CO2 you still won't get a GH effect or store the energy. Because the rate of absorption still equals rate of emission at equilibrium.

He says the data show the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium. This is really wrong because during the day the sun is shining. Heat and radiation are flowing through the atmosphere, so it is not in thermal equilibrium nor radiative equilibrium.

Conclusion: I think their theory fails because they didn't think through that atoms are not colinear and the atmosphere is not in thermal nor radiative equilibrium.

.

 

[SSDD]

Conclusion: I think their theory fails because they didn't think through that atoms are not colinear and the atmosphere is not in thermal nor radiative equilibrium.

.

I think they are far closer to being correct than you...what does the greenhouse hypothesis predict the temperature of venus is again?

 

[Wuwei]

I think they are far closer to being correct than you...what does the greenhouse hypothesis predict the temperature of venus is again?

I have no idea what is predicted.

Where does that 16500 Watts per square meter of radiation from the surface of Venus go again? You never said. You only said why you think the surface gets hot. Do you think it's absorbed by the atmosphere? Do you think it all goes to outer space?

.

 

[ReinyDays]

I have done it over and over...in this thread also...back towards the beginning. I haven't "omitted", or withheld anything. It is all there for anyone who cares to look. As I have already said, the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities and the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant beyond the contribution of each gas to the total mass of the atmosphere...

I've been pondering how to answer this ... you've used such wide brushstrokes as to cover everything ... and indeed everything is connected to everything else ... but that's not very useful ... you don't say anything ... quick, the paint is running there where you double-downed on gravity ... maybe that's because you mentioned mass three times ...

You left out latent heat ... a rather serious omission ... keeping water in it's vapor state requires an enormous amount of energy ... and the water vapor content varies wildly in both time and space ... you know the numbers, condensing just half the water in a typical kilogram of air will raise the temperature 10ºC ... if not for radiation ...

Here is a new review of the radiosonde data going back to the beginning something like 20 million data sets spanning seventy years and demonstrates clearly and convincingly that any radiative atmospheric effect; call it the greenhouse effect or whatever you like simply does not exist. The video is a bit on the long side, but for anyone interested in seeing the numerous, as of yet, untested paradigms that presently prevail in climate science put to the test, it is very interesting...One might wish that the speakers were a bit more accustomed to public speaking, but clearly they are far more comfortable doing the work as opposed to a media savvy fraud like michael man who is very cool on camera but lies with every breath he takes.

I got about ten minutes into this ... just chewing the same ground I've been on the past couple of days ... with their admission of self-publishing and wuwei's comments may lead me away ... perhaps if you gave the start time to their main body of work? ... just want to point out that if the radiosonde data follows an adiabat, then that atmospheric column is in thermodynamic equilibrium ... conduction and convection are inhibited, we have only radiation for energy transfer from the Earth's surface to outer space ... it's not all that rare for the atmosphere to be completely stable, and common for a significant portion to be such ... just saying ...

Not sure what's untested about transparency ... just load your camera with some 2.5 micron film and try imaging the star-forming regions of the Orion Nebula ... rats ... everything fogged out completely ... our atmosphere is opaque to 2.5 micron light ... we'll have to be in Earth's orbit to take that shot ...

 

[ReinyDays]

There's no meteor craters on the surface of Venus older than about a half billion years ... as though her entire surface was subsumed by the molten mantle and a new surface solidified ... we need to be careful comparing atmospheres, there's still much we don't know about Venus ...

We do have one temperature measurement, and we can measure solar radiation and then calculate the greenhouse effect ... see, perfectly predicts our temperature to better than a millionth of a degree ... the perfect circle ...

 

[jc456]

You haven't addressed the dilemma I posed here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
I know the reason why. You have two choices:

1. The famous scientists behind the various statements of the second law are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.
2. Radiation exchange is allowed by the 2nd law. So the current understanding of green house back radiation is not invalidated.

Neither option is palatable to you. You are cornered and that is why you dare not answer. Simply invoking abusive invectives is your only resort. What I don't understand is that there are lots of ways to approach invalidation of AGW, but you choose to set yourself up as a science laughing stock and defy basic physics.

.

or you could post up observed empirical evidence. fk dude, we're on like page 1000 and still you haven't provided that observed evidence. why not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You haven't addressed the dilemma I posed here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
I know the reason why. You have two choices:

1. The famous scientists behind the various statements of the second law are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.
2. Radiation exchange is allowed by the 2nd law. So the current understanding of green house back radiation is not invalidated.

Neither option is palatable to you. You are cornered and that is why you dare not answer. Simply invoking abusive invectives is your only resort. What I don't understand is that there are lots of ways to approach invalidation of AGW, but you choose to set yourself up as a science laughing stock and defy basic physics.

.

or you could post up observed empirical evidence. fk dude, we're on like page 1000 and still you haven't provided that observed evidence. why not?

You need evidence of radiation exchange?

 

[jc456]

By the way...the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis as described by climate science hasn't changed in decades...even though it has littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions..the only change it has seen is an increase in the margin of error so as it invariably wanders further and further from reality, climate science can still claim it is within the margin of error..

I'm fine if you want to deny the greenhouse effect, but now you have to tell us why the Earth's surface is 12ºC warmer than it would be without an atmosphere ... if you don't think you're responsible for this, then you're irresponsible ... adults call this a "lie of omission" ... withholding information for the purposes of deceit ... you're better than that, so why persist? ...

he told you.

 

[jc456]

By the way...the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis as described by climate science hasn't changed in decades...even though it has littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions..the only change it has seen is an increase in the margin of error so as it invariably wanders further and further from reality, climate science can still claim it is within the margin of error..

I'm fine if you want to deny the greenhouse effect, but now you have to tell us why the Earth's surface is 12ºC warmer than it would be without an atmosphere ... if you don't think you're responsible for this, then you're irresponsible ... adults call this a "lie of omission" ... withholding information for the purposes of deceit ... you're better than that, so why persist? ...

I have done it over and over...in this thread also...back towards the beginning. I haven't "omitted", or withheld anything. It is all there for anyone who cares to look. As I have already said, the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities and the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant beyond the contribution of each gas to the total mass of the atmosphere...

Here is a new review of the radiosonde data going back to the beginning something like 20 million data sets spanning seventy years and demonstrates clearly and convincingly that any radiative atmospheric effect; call it the greenhouse effect or whatever you like simply does not exist. The video is a bit on the long side, but for anyone interested in seeing the numerous, as of yet, untested paradigms that presently prevail in climate science put to the test, it is very interesting...One might wish that the speakers were a bit more accustomed to public speaking, but clearly they are far more comfortable doing the work as opposed to a media savvy fraud like michael man who is very cool on camera but lies with every breath he takes.

in other words, a lot of shit!! too fking complicated for a greenhouser to ever understand.

 

[jc456]

You haven't addressed the dilemma I posed here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
I know the reason why. You have two choices:

1. The famous scientists behind the various statements of the second law are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.
2. Radiation exchange is allowed by the 2nd law. So the current understanding of green house back radiation is not invalidated.

Neither option is palatable to you. You are cornered and that is why you dare not answer. Simply invoking abusive invectives is your only resort. What I don't understand is that there are lots of ways to approach invalidation of AGW, but you choose to set yourself up as a science laughing stock and defy basic physics.

.

or you could post up observed empirical evidence. fk dude, we're on like page 1000 and still you haven't provided that observed evidence. why not?

You need evidence of radiation exchange?

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere. you failed. in every post you have ever made in here to post that evidence. I'm still waiting.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You haven't addressed the dilemma I posed here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
I know the reason why. You have two choices:

1. The famous scientists behind the various statements of the second law are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.
2. Radiation exchange is allowed by the 2nd law. So the current understanding of green house back radiation is not invalidated.

Neither option is palatable to you. You are cornered and that is why you dare not answer. Simply invoking abusive invectives is your only resort. What I don't understand is that there are lots of ways to approach invalidation of AGW, but you choose to set yourself up as a science laughing stock and defy basic physics.

.

or you could post up observed empirical evidence. fk dude, we're on like page 1000 and still you haven't provided that observed evidence. why not?

You need evidence of radiation exchange?

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere. you failed. in every post you have ever made in here to post that evidence. I'm still waiting.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere.

CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

 

[jc456]

You haven't addressed the dilemma I posed here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
I know the reason why. You have two choices:

1. The famous scientists behind the various statements of the second law are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.
2. Radiation exchange is allowed by the 2nd law. So the current understanding of green house back radiation is not invalidated.

Neither option is palatable to you. You are cornered and that is why you dare not answer. Simply invoking abusive invectives is your only resort. What I don't understand is that there are lots of ways to approach invalidation of AGW, but you choose to set yourself up as a science laughing stock and defy basic physics.

.

or you could post up observed empirical evidence. fk dude, we're on like page 1000 and still you haven't provided that observed evidence. why not?

You need evidence of radiation exchange?

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere. you failed. in every post you have ever made in here to post that evidence. I'm still waiting.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere.

CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

View attachment 288146

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday.

Great, then you have evidence of it radiating back to the surface? on those hot days then. BTW, how much of the atmospheric CO2 actually radiates? got those figures old wise one?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You haven't addressed the dilemma I posed here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
I know the reason why. You have two choices:

1. The famous scientists behind the various statements of the second law are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.
2. Radiation exchange is allowed by the 2nd law. So the current understanding of green house back radiation is not invalidated.

Neither option is palatable to you. You are cornered and that is why you dare not answer. Simply invoking abusive invectives is your only resort. What I don't understand is that there are lots of ways to approach invalidation of AGW, but you choose to set yourself up as a science laughing stock and defy basic physics.

.

or you could post up observed empirical evidence. fk dude, we're on like page 1000 and still you haven't provided that observed evidence. why not?

You need evidence of radiation exchange?

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere. you failed. in every post you have ever made in here to post that evidence. I'm still waiting.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere.

CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

View attachment 288146

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday.

Great, then you have evidence of it radiating back to the surface? on those hot days then. BTW, how much of the atmospheric CO2 actually radiates? got those figures old wise one?

 

[jc456]

or you could post up observed empirical evidence. fk dude, we're on like page 1000 and still you haven't provided that observed evidence. why not?

You need evidence of radiation exchange?

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere. you failed. in every post you have ever made in here to post that evidence. I'm still waiting.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere.

CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

View attachment 288146

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday.

Great, then you have evidence of it radiating back to the surface? on those hot days then. BTW, how much of the atmospheric CO2 actually radiates? got those figures old wise one?

that says nighttime. I said hot days. hmmmm reading really is an issue for you isn't it?

 

[ReinyDays]

Lay out some 15 micron photographic film on the Earth's surface face up ... see how it becomes completely exposed ... fogged ... 15 micron solar radiation is completely absorbed in the first 20% of the atmosphere ... the only way to expose this film is by 15 micron radiation from CO2 back to the Earth's surface ...

If you can explain this phenomena any other way ... please do ... every astronomer in the whole world awaits your answer ...

ETA: 4.5 and 2.5 micron film will work just as well, but this includes water vapor's radiation back to the Earth's surface ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You need evidence of radiation exchange?

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere. you failed. in every post you have ever made in here to post that evidence. I'm still waiting.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

I need evidence that during a hot day, CO2 radiates to earth surface from the atmosphere.

CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday.

In fact, you haven't shown CO2 in the atmosphere ever radiating back to earth's surface..

View attachment 288146

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in all directions. Hot day, cold day, everyday.

Great, then you have evidence of it radiating back to the surface? on those hot days then. BTW, how much of the atmospheric CO2 actually radiates? got those figures old wise one?

that says nighttime. I said hot days. hmmmm reading really is an issue for you isn't it?

that says nighttime. I said hot days.

That's a 72 hour period. Try reading.