The Low CO2 Climate Of 1921
Independent climate researcher, Tony Heller, offers another devastating yet simple to follow video exposing the climate scam. We see that rather than cutting our use of oil, gas and other mineral resources, we should be expressing GRATITUDE for having them.
While we live in a high-tech, high information society so many people remain ignorant and misinformed – our youth are spoiled and mislead and entitled. Heller expertly uncovers old news articles from yesteryear disproving today’s apocalyptic scare stories.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Andy Rowlands
| #
Tony Heller never fails to hit the nail on the head.
Reply
geran
| #
Unfortunately, Tony has a very mixed background. Unless he has changed, he believes in the pseudoscience of the “greenhouse effect”. He has even censored people that were trying to explain the physics to him.
We like an attack dog when he is attacking our enemy, but beware he may turn on us at any time.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
He has even censored people that were trying to explain the physics to him.
James:
He probably got sick of hearing you idiots making your erroneous claim that heat only moves from hot to cold.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Reply
geran
| #
That could be correct, James. Because, like you, Tony does not understand the basic physics and does not want to learn. Instead, he gets frustrated, calls people “idiots” or “morons”, and then censors them.
We see this behavior pattern quite often among the purveyors of pseudoscience.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
Heat moves in all directions at all times. Heat does not move only from hotter to colder. Increase in measured temperature only moves from hot to cold. THIS HAD TO BE EXPLAINED TO YOU MORONS HUNDREDS OF TIME BEFORE YOU FINALLY STARTED TO GET IT!!!
OVER AND OVER AND FRICKING OVER AGAIN PEOPLE HAD TO EXPLAIN TO YOU MORONS THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “HEAT” (OR “HEATING”) AND NET INCREASE/DECREASE IN TEMPERATURE. And despite all our effforts you, recently, came here and again and stated that heat only moves from hot to cold.
Is there no limit to your intransigence?
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
geran
| #
James, you are confusing “energy” with “heat”. Energy can move in any direction, but heat only moves from hot to cold. Wikipedia probably supplies too much for you to comprehend, but just two sentences might help:
In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter.
When there is a suitable path between two systems with different temperatures, heat transfer occurs necessarily, immediately, and spontaneously from the hotter to the colder system.
But, as always, I enjoyed your childish rant.
More please.
Reply
Jame McGinn
| #
Geran:
James, you are confusing “energy” with “heat”. Energy can move in any direction, but heat only moves from hot to cold.
James:
Both objects (one hotter, one cooler) receive energy from the other object. Both objects have a higher temperature than they would have if they did not receive the energy from the other object. According to my nomenclature and in accordance with the nomenclature of most English speakers, both objects have been heated. So, your point is dogmatic, meaningless, petty, and childish.
Geran:
In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system
James:
LOL. YOU JUST STATED THAT ENERGY MOVES BOTH WAYS!!!
Read you own words, you convoluted moron.
James McGinn / Solving / Tornadoes
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
James McGinn / Genius
Wikipedia probably supplies too much for you to comprehend, but just two sentences might help:
Reply
geran
| #
Wrong again, “Jame”.
Believing that cold can warm hot is the pseudoscience that you can bake a turkey with ice cubes. That’s funny, but it’s not reality.
Your all-caps desperation goes nicely with your nervous misspelling of your own name.
Hilarious.
More please.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
Believing that cold can warm hot is the pseudoscience that you can bake a turkey with ice cubes. That’s funny, but it’s not reality.
James:
LOL. All you got is cliche.
I have no doubt that you understand thermodynamics. Your problem is you use the English language poorly. You fail to take into account that other’s may assume different connotations of words than you are assuming. So, instead of being explicit and explanatory you pull a Joe Postma and throw a temper tantrum like a two year old.
If you aren’t willing to define which of several meanings/interpretations are associated with concepts like “heat” then you need to stay on CoS so that you don’t bother and confuse people who are guilty of nothing more than assuming a different meaning/interpretation than you choose.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Reply
geran
| #
Well “Jame”, if all that blather translates to you admitting you don’t know the thermodynamic definition of heat, I have to agree with you.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Hi Geran!
I would really appreciate it if you could communicate my latest article to Mr. Postma:
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/04/the-case-of-two-different-fluxes/
Reply
geran
| #
I’ve got a better idea, Zoe.
Why don’t you apologize to Joseph and ask to get “un-banned”? Joseph’s a reasonable guy, but like all of us, he doesn’t like being stabbed in the back.
PS One of the things wrong with your example problem is that it is “instantaneous”, not “steady”.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
Instaneous and not steady? What? search for the word “steady”. I think this is gibberish to dismiss my arguments. How do we know? There is no different formulas for “steady” and “instantaneous”! If you’re going to make a distinction please supply the different formulas.
I didn’t stab Joseph in the back. I simply got smarter during the period I was commenting. I wasn’t holding back a different opinion, I actually believed him for almost 2 years, until I figured out his folly.
Joseph still has no explanation for why it’s 15°C at the surface. He still counts 480 W/m^2 in and 240 W/m^2 out as if there is a transition from 480 to 240 over a 24 hour period. No, by SB Law, the 480 doesn’t even count until thermalization and emission (240). In my opinion he uses sophistry to get around this fact, but I see his fans disagree.
Why don’t you link my article, and he can say whatever he wants in his own public forum?
geran
| #
Zoe, “steady-state” conduction occurs when the temperatures remain constant. In your example, you have “defined” the heat flux in the concrete. Then, you have calculated the end temperature based on your definition.
Plus, your calculation of the S/B flux is actually in Watts, not W/m^2, because you multiplied the flux by the area.
If a child were playing with matches, would you take the matches away from her?
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
” “steady-state” conduction occurs when the temperatures remain constant. In your example, you have “defined” the heat flux in the concrete. Then, you have calculated the end temperature based on your definition.”
Uhm, so what? The problem works backwards and forwards. I could have given you the end temperature and left q or q/A to be figured out. Why is that a big deal? This is a very simple and common college textbook problem.
For example:
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/heattransfer5thed-incroperaanddewitt-150417092349-conversion-gate01/95/heat-transfer-5th-ed-solution-manual-incropera-and-dewitt-1-638.jpg?cb=1429262799
See? They figure out T2.
“Plus, your calculation of the S/B flux is actually in Watts, not W/m^2, because you multiplied the flux by the area.”
That is indeed a mistake on my part. Thank you for spotting it.
geran
| #
Again Zoe, in both examples the condition is NOT steady-state. That’s why your fluxes don’t make sense. You understood your W/m^2 mistake because you understand the math. It’s the physics that has you confused.
If one end of an object is at a higher temperature than the other end, that is NOT an equilibrium condition. The temperatures will tend to equalize. You are working with instantaneous values, disregarding energy flows. You will get bogus results. At equilibrium, both ends are at the same temperature, and the heat flow is zero. Your “defined” q = 2W goes away.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
“If one end of an object is at a higher temperature than the other end, that is NOT an equilibrium condition.”
No, it’s the definition of steady-state condition.
“At equilibrium, both ends are at the same temperature, and the heat flow is zero. Your “defined” q = 2W goes away.”
OK, then the other end is 75C => 833 W/m^2. LMAO
What part of CHF and CSR being inversely related did you not understand?
You sound like a Democrat. What part of Trump’s questioning Zelinsky about the 2016 election and not about Joe Biden or any military aid do you not understand?
geran
| #
“OK, then the other end is 75C => 833 W/m^2. LMAO”
You still don’t understand, Zoe. That is the “instantaneous” value. With no energy input, the next instant the temperature and flux would be less.
Learn some physics.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
“With no energy input, the next instant the temperature and flux would be less.”
What are you talking about? The energy input is on the hot side – 833 Joules per square meter … every second.
Are you high?
geran
| #
You got both the math and the physics wrong again, Zoe.
You forgot to account for the emissivity, 0.9. That’s your math mistake.
And you are now trying to claim the output is an input? That’s your physics mistake.
Learn some physics.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
“And you are now trying to claim the output is an input? That’s your physics mistake.”
You wanted an equilibrium, and now you’re complaining about that!
You really are a democrat. Bleh
James McGinn
| #
James:
You are still confused. Above you indicated energy moves in both directions. You also indicated that movement of energy is heat. Thusly you, again, contradicted yourself.
You understand thermodynamics. Your incompetence has to do with your usage of the English language.
Increase in temperature goes from hot to cold, moron. Energy and heating go in all directions at all times.
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
geran
| #
James, “heat” is a special type of energy. “Heat” only moves in one direction. That’s an important distinction you need to begin your understanding of 2nd Law.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Geran,
You are a simpleton who can’t deal with the complexities of the English language. What you are saying is true if and only if you BEFOREHAND define heat as increase in temperature. You are just a poor communicator.
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
James McGinn / Genius
geran
| #
I’m transmitting just fine. You can’t receive.
It’s likely due to some blockage on your end.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
You are wasting time responding to Geran, Zoe, or JD. They are book scientists who look up answers, graphs, and formula to repeat but have no understanding, thought, or ability to question what they read. Geran gets great joy from misspellings or typos but hasn’t the ability to understand that if the sun emits radiation and that radiation doesn’t strike the surface of the Earth it is absorbed in the atmosphere. The are egotistical children so proud that they got A s in physic that they need to show off and demonstrate that they understand nothing.
Herb.
Reply
geran
| #
“Herg”, are you so despondent over your inability to use a thermometer that you must resort to unfounded attacks?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
You never asked me, but I understand that the atmosphere absorbs ~77 W/m^2 directly from the sun.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
if the sun emits radiation and that radiation doesn’t strike the surface of the Earth it is absorbed in the atmosphere.
James McGinn:
Herb, I don’t understand why you are wording it like you are. Both earth and atmosphere is heated by sun. I didn’t think this was controversial.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The GHGT holds that the sun heats the surface of the Earth then the Earth heats the atmosphere (ask Geran). They maintain that since oxygen and nitrogen don’t absorb infrared radiation the sun is not heating the atmosphere. They acknowledge that both oxygen and nitrogen molecules are split into elemental atoms in the ionosphere by the energy of the sun but don’t accept that this is heating the gas molecules/atoms.It doesn’t mater that it takes 940 joules/mole to split nitrogen gas or 500 kjoules/mole to split oxygen molecules, this energy somehow disappears and doesn’t increase the kinetic energy of the molecules/atoms.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Wrong again, Herb.
The “GHGT” claims that Sun warms Earth surface, and Earth surface warms the atmosphere…AND the atmosphere then warms Earth surface some more!
You left out the last part, either through incompetence, or attempting some deception.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
They maintain that since oxygen and nitrogen don’t absorb infrared radiation the sun is not heating the atmosphere.
James:
Okay. Yes, I see what you are saying now. You are right. There is a common misconception regarding IR and heat. People–mostly dumb people–think that IR and heat are interchangeable. There is a reason for this misconception. Humans are made of carbon and water. Consequently, when we encounter IR we feel heat. And, when we encounter UV and other wavelengths we don’t feel heat. Dumb people take this and, using the twisted, untraceable logic that dumb people hide from the public, arrive at the absurd conclusion that non-IR EME doesn’t or can’t produce heat.
The world is full of morons.
James Mcginn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Chris
| #
Heat only moves in one direction, hotter to colder. Heat does make an attempt to move from the colder to the hotter, but it is overcome. This is called a temperature difference. But heat will only move from the hotter to the colder, this has been referred to as the “net” movement. It only goes one way. A colder object cannot heat up a hotter object.
Reply
Me_again
| #
That’s what you think from you school-kid physics because you don’t have a correct understanding of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says nothing about temperatures.
Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.
The rest of my response is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ihaY_1KSrE and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI&feature=youtu.be
Reply
.James McGinn
| #
Heat (exchange of energy) goes both ways. Net increase in temperature only goes one way, from hot to cold.
Reply