Rocket Science Debunks Climate Change Pseudoscience
Image: istock
I would like to draw your attention to an excellent discussion and real-world example of how practical experimental science debunks the postulated notions of radiant fluxes and temperatures adding together as is envisioned at the very basis of climate science in its falsely-named and non-existent “greenhouse effect”.
In the video below, scan to time index 22:00 where Tim Dodd mentions cooling with turbopump exhaust:
To quote The Everyday Astronaut:
TD: “Film cooling can take a few forms, either by injecting additional fuel inside the combustion chamber along the walls to keep those areas cooler, by pumping cooler exhaust down along the nozzle, or both. We’ve touched on the gas-generator exhaust before in my video about Raptor engines, but the exhaust from a gas-generator or pre-burner is relatively cool since it needs to be a low enough temperature for the turbine to be able to survive being subject to it.
It’s just super-weird to think that you can take hot exhaust, like one-thousand Celsius, mix it with hotter exhaust, like around twenty-five hundred Celsius, and actually end up somewhere between the two temperatures. My dumb brain tends to think that if you add those two together it’s the sum of those two numbers and not the average.
I guess it’s a good thing that I’m not a rocket engineer. But, hey, I guess I’m proof that it’s never too late to start learning thermodynamics.”
Well said, Tim…well said. You know, though…you could be a climate scientist without having to learn thermodynamics!
In climate science, what Tim Dodd points out is thermodynamically impossible, and would make rocketry as we know it today totally impossible, is established as the very basis of the field of study! That is, the cooler exhaust energy is cycled back into the surface to make the surface hotter than the already-hotter surface! In climate science, temperatures are added together, rather than averaged, or differenced.
Why is climate science founded upon adding temperatures together, rather than averaging (or differencing) them as is done in real-world rocketry (and anywhere else in thermodynamics for that matter)? If you haven’t encountered this before, be ready to be shocked:
Climate science begins its study of the Earth’s climate at the position that the Sun does not create Earth’s climate. That leads to another question: Why does climate science start at the position that the Sun does not create Earth’s climate, and how did it get there?
Climate science got into that position because it averages the solar input over the entire surface area of the Earth, rather than only over the hemisphere that sunlight actually falls upon. Climate science also utilizes a flat plane as representing the entire Earth in order to perform this average. When you dilute the power of sunlight over time and space it never actually occurs upon (the entire terrestrial surface at once as an input), then you reduce the heating power of sunshine by a factor of four, 4!
This works out to a heating potential of -18C, at which point one is “forced” to wonder: if solar power can only heat things to -18C, then how are there temperatures higher than -18C?
Climate science solves that problem by ADDING the exhaust energy from an initial heating at -18C, back into itself – it adds temperatures together. Climate science back-adds the cooler temperature of the atmosphere in to the warmer temperature of the surface to create a hotter temperature for the surface, rather than arriving at an averaged temperature. In short, climate science thinks that the climate creates itself by adding temperatures together, just as Tim Dodd points out is not how thermodynamics works from the practical applications of rocket science.
Of course climate science can get away with this pseudoscience because it has no practical product that anyone uses in the real world, anywhere. In engineering, especially thermodynamic engineering, your design and your theory has to work; people’s lives actually do depend upon it. Of course climate science claims that human lives depend upon the field of climate science…but they have no practical demonstration of this claim, they just say that, and scare you about it.
The utility of climate science is not in its thermodynamics, which it cannot demonstrate, but rather is in its political power.
In any case, there you have it: rocket science debunks climate alarm, global warming, and basically the entire field of climate science. Not that we needed rocket science to do this for us as anyone intelligent enough can comprehend that flat Earth theory where the Sun does not create the climate is a-priori pseudoscience…but nevertheless this is a wonderful practical demonstration of thermodynamic engineering which exposes the fraud of climate science as a field.
As for climate science and how to approach the study of climate, refer to the graphic above: sunshine is not only a -18C heating potential, but is actually upwards of +120C! Sunshine is incredibly hot and powerful, able to generate the climate as we know it. Sunshine is powerful enough to heat through the latent heat phases of H2O and then this latent heat keeps the night-side of the planet much warmer than otherwise. The average surface temperature therefore could never be only -18C.
And then add in the fact that the adiabatic gradient requires that the warmest air be found next to the surface, and any expected average must be at altitude, and then it becomes perfectly clear and justified that -18C could never be found at the surface.
Why is the Earth’s surface not -18C?
- Because Earth is heated by sunshine to much higher than -18C
- Because sunshine fills the latent heat sink at both the ice-water and water-vapor transitions, and this keeps the night side and the poles much warmer than otherwise as this heat comes back out when sufficient solar power is not present
- Because the adiabatic gradient requires that the expected average of -18C may only be found at the average of the atmosphere, not the extremity of the atmosphere closest to the surface
The answer to the above question is definitely not that the temperature of the colder atmosphere adds with the temperature of the warmer surface to create an even warmer temperature!
See more here: climateofsophistry.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
Anybody can do a simple experiment at home to prove the last point. Just take two cups of water at different temperatures and mix them to see what temperature you get. Two cups at 50C don’t make boiling water when mixed.
The problem is that the young are so brainwashed they wouldn’t even try this simple experiment because they could live with having their beliefs shattered.
Reply
Barry
| #
It’s sad that you have to explain to people that you don’t add temp together. But such is the world we live in today where we have dumbed down society to the point where people don’t want to think for themselves. If you tell these people that the sun heats the earth and not co2 they will tell you that of coarse the sun heats the earth and yet they think co2 heats the earth. If you look at the energy balance put out by the agw crowd it is clear that they are saying all temp above -18 is because of co2. You can’t have it both ways either the sun heats the earth or co2 does,you can decide for yourself but I would choose to think it’s the sun.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph,
I must commend you for finally referring us to a simple experiment which we all can do and actually measure the outcome.
And to point out the problem of averaging the temperature of the atmosphere (troposphere) which we have long observed has a temperature which tends to decrease with increasing altitude. So that if one averages the temperatures of this generally understood NATURAL temperature gradient, the calculated temperature is negative.
This is simple and easy to understand. Good job Joseph!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph, James McGinn, and hopefully PSI Readers,
(http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=naconf&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2021&MONTH=05&FROM=2812&TO=2812&STNM=72694&ICE=1) Hope this link works after this comment is submitted.
Consider this sounding data above 12000m during the darkness of nighttime. Lots of turbulence and wind shear and no clear temperature gradient in this upper portion of the atmosphere. And this sounding data did not exist until after WWII when meteorologists and atmospheric scientists had learned in 1899 that the atmospheric temperature gradient did not continue to decrease to the ‘top’ of the atmosphere.
Nor does the data of this sounding. It doesn’t even extend to the top of the Stratosphere. But data like this is a start in understanding what exactly exists at one time in the lower portion of the stratosphere. But other soundings will show that this lower portion is a very dynamic place where there appear to be no clouds.
The point of this comment is that the Earth’s atmosphere is still a largely unknown system because its details (like those of this sounding) are largely unknown. But one detail which should be obvious is that the troposphere has a cover which prevents upward vertical convection (updraft) into the stratosphere but this cover does not prevent the subsidence (downdraft) of the stratosphere atmosphere down into the troposphere and down to the Earth’s surface. Not sure that this one-way cover is commonly considered.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Dr. Jerry and curious bystanders.
Wind arrival. This is off topic but interesting and probably never considered by most people but a fact observed by fisher peopleses. ( girl and boy fishers who actually do have gender )
When you have a still ( wind less ) morning but weather forecasts are for a wind off the ocean the wind nearly always arrives with the low tide.
As the ocean level falls the predicted wind is merely filling the space vacated by the ocean level drop.
Once the ocean level stops dropping ( low tide ) the forecast wind arrives and as the rising tide starts displacing the atmosphere the wind strength increases.
Todays trivia.
Matt
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Matt:
Once the ocean level stops dropping ( low tide ) the forecast wind arrives and as the rising tide starts displacing the atmosphere the wind strength increases.
JMcG:
Interesting. And it makes complete sense too since the oceans are so much more massive than the atmosphere.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
[[Why is climate science founded upon adding temperatures together, rather than averaging (or differencing) them as is done in real-world rocketry (and anywhere else in thermodynamics for that matter)?]]
Even fifth graders know the difference between heat and temperature. Heat isn’t a quantity, it’s a flow. Objects in contact establish a final temperature based on temperature, mass, and heat capacity, not temperature alone.
[[Heat and temperature are two different but closely related concepts. Note that they have different units: temperature typically has units of degrees Celsius (∘C) or Kelvin (K), and heat has units of energy, Joules (J). Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules in the system. The water molecules in a cup of hot coffee have a higher average kinetic energy than the water molecules in a cup of iced tea, which also means they are moving at a higher velocity. Temperature is also an intensive property, which means that the temperature doesn’t change no matter how much of a substance you have (as long as it is all at the same temperature!). This is why chemists can use the melting point to help identify a pure substance − the temperature at which it melts is a property of the substance with no dependence on the mass of a sample.”
” We can calculate the heat released or absorbed using the specific heat capacity C), the mass of the substance (m), and the change in temperature (ΔT) in the equation::
q=m×C×ΔT ]]
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-chemistry/thermodynamics-ap/internal-energy-tutorial-ap/a/heat
We’re living in a madhouse ever since the global Marxist-run U.N. IPCC hijacked Earth atmospheric science and turned it into “climate science”, which is just zany unhinged Looney Tunes leftist environmentalism with science turned upside-down and inside-out to rationalize their visceral hatred of the oil industry. Nothing they teach is true. It’s a giant crackpot beehive of lies, and you must throw it all out and start over to really understand Earth’s climate. Whatever you do, don’t compromise and accept portions as if you’re hedging your bets on a dog race.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-science-mean-in-the-following-question-Why-do-people-deny-the-science-of-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
A glaring example that’s missed even by most IPCC critics is their total failure to recognize the huge role entropy plays in messing up their claimed Sun-Earth energy balance that is the lynchpin of their whole scam. Indeed, black body radiation is defined as that containing the largest amount of entropy for a given energy, which shows the utter incompetence of trying to equate the T^4 energy from the Sun with that of the Earth’s surface, when the difference in the T^4 terms is the amount of energy dispersed into the Heat Death of the Universe by the black body radiation process, with dispersion meaning that it’s forever useless to create heat or do work, i.e., lost, kaput.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-increase-of-entropy-affect-the-environment/answer/TL-Winslow
That’s why I’ve been offering my cool Climate Science 101 course that teaches pure sweet physics and explodes every IPCC lie. It’s real physics so it’s hard, but incredibly useful, the basis of a lifetime of doing real climate science. So why not dig in and improve your mind now? You’re discounting it because it’s free? Would you be more eager if I charged $10,000? If I don’t get more action I’m thinking of trying it.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TL,
Review what you just wrote: “Even fifth graders know the difference between heat and temperature. Heat isn’t a quantity, it’s a flow. Objects in contact establish a final temperature based on temperature, mass, and heat capacity, not temperature alone.
“[[Heat and temperature are two different but closely related concepts. Note that they have different units: temperature typically has units of degrees Celsius (∘C) or Kelvin (K), and heat has units of energy, Joules (J). Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules in the system.”
“Heat isn’t a quantity, it’s a flow.”. So why does it have units (joules). And you state joules is an ENERGY unit. So, is a flow ENERGY?
“”Objects in contact establish a final temperature based on temperature, mass, and heat capacity, not temperature alone.” The final temperature is an equilibrium temperature of the total system and should not change unless more energy is going to be added to the system. Then the masses and heat capacity of the individual parts the total system would need to be considered to calculate (instead of measuring) the new equilibrium temperature.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andy
| #
Excellent article Joe!
Reply
MattH
| #
Very good well set out analysis thank you Joe.
We have black iron sand beaches where I live and in summer at and a couple of hours after the suns near zenith you have to run across the dry sand to avoid being burnt.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
MattH: You must be on the west coast of the North Island of New Zealand. Am I right?
Reply
MattH
| #
Buy a lotto ticket Doug. See if your luck holds.
Ironsand has a tendency to heat up in direct sunlight, causing temperatures high enough to cause minor burns. As such it forms a hazard in New Zealand at popular west-coast surf beaches such as Piha.( wikipedia )
Reply
MattH
| #
Hey Doug. What is the title of your book?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH, Doug and hopefully other PSI readers,
Conversations are a critically important activity of SCIENCE. Which is DEFEATED (prevented) by censorship. John O’Sullivan was one of the original founders of PSI and became its editor. PSI was founded because the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (GHE) could not be questioned in SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS of 2012 that had editors and peer-reviewer who decided if an article was WORTHY of publication.
But some PSI Readers criticize John O’, PSI editor, for posting articles with which these Readers consider to be nonsense). However, John O’ has rightly decided that NO ONE IS QUALIFIED TO CENSOR ANYONE’S SCIENTIFIC IDEA and he lets EVERY PSI READER TO DECIDE THE MERIT OF WHAT THEY READ.
I have read that Galileo stated (as translated by someone): “I have never met a man [person] so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
Which brings us to MattH’s comment about his personal experiences with ‘black beach sand that was, according to him, due to IRON. And Doug confirmed that MattH’s experience was a common one on the west coast of the north island of NZ.
I am a chemist and I know that the black sand was not due to IRON but instead was due an impurity of silicon dioxide (SiO2, colorless crystals) which was IRON SULFIDE (FeS, black crystals). Hence, a question that a READER might ask: If sand is colorless why is it white?
A little known fact is that Galileo wrote the following in his book which is considered the foundation of OBSERVATIONAL PHILOSOPHY (as translated to the English language by Crew and de Salvio).
“The exquisite transparency of water also favors this view, for the most transparent crystal when broken and ground and reduced to power loses its transparency; the finer the grinding the greater the loss.”
Galileo did not attempt to explain why or how this was true (observed) and maybe many SCIENTISTS today still do not know WHY or HOW this was TRUE.
However, because of MattH’s and Doug’s comments we know that the impurity FeS (black tiny crystals) makes white sand black and that the midday temperature of the black sand is greater than that of white sand.
The first question I ponder and still have no explanation is: How is it that FeS crystals absorb most all visible solar radiation?
Maybe some READER can help me (us).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry and curious bystanders.
My point of course was the sun can heat earth’s surface in a temperate climate during summer hot enough to cause burns.
New Zealand is the only country to use ironsand for industrial smelting.[34] The typical composition of the magnetite is 82% iron oxide, 8% titanium dioxide and 8% silica; 0.015% sulfur, and 0.015% phosphorus. In 100% concentrations of magnetite this had a maximum potential to yield ~ 58% metallic iron, although the titanium is unrecoverable by modern techniques.[3 wikipedia
Have a nice day. Matt
Reply
E. Nichols
| #
Intriguingly many of the proponents of climate change promote the use of solar panels for ‘green’ energy, which seems quite absurd under the assumption that thermal potential of the sun is -18 degrees C! As it stands climate science has very little credibility as an actual branch of science due ignoring thermodynamics, which of course is fatal to any theory denying its reality. Thanks Joe for your insights and how easily this nonsense is refuted. Unfortunately the people do not want to confused by facts or truth.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
The graphic the author uses illustrates everything clearly.
The average ‘hemi-spheric’ solar energy input should heat the surface to approximately 30 C., via Stefan-Boltzman Equation.
A simple ‘common sense reality check’: What is the surface temperature of the oceans in the Tropics?
Answer: 26-30 C.
The Tropical Latitudes of the Earth account for almost half of the surface area.
Reply
Lit
| #
Because Earth is heated by sunshine to much higher than -18C
and Earth is a red hot rock with a crust. If Earth was a cold rock inside sunlight wouldn´t heat it to 14C
Reply