More thoughts about idiots posing as scientists
It maintains that the atmosphere is being heated by heat coming from the surface of the Earth and that the water, CO2, and methane in the air are blocking that flow of energy into space adding heat to the surface.
The theory was proposed in the 1800s and admitted by its author, Svanti Arrhenius, to be false in the early 1900s, ‘settling’ the science.
Its subsequent resurrection was not from science but by politicians, done in order to create an imaginary crisis frightening the public and allowing them to steal tax money.
No amount of money spent or any sacrifices made by the people will have any effect on the climate.
The perpetrators of this scam have hired people pretending to be scientist, and using a complicit news media and an education system which profited from this hoax, have pulled off the largest fraud in history, destroying science in the process.
People with little knowledge of science have been bamboozled by the fake “experts” into believing something that their own experiences and common sense tells them is false. By using scare tactics, predicting disastrous consequences of inaction, they have controlled the public and wasted trillions of dollars.
There is nothing people can do to affect the climate, which is caused by the energy coming from the sun and the position of the Earth. People are limited to actions that can only modify the consequences of a (allegedly – Ed) changing climate.
Any examination of reality shows that there is no truth in the theory behind the fraud.
The theory claims that while there is snow on the ground the atmosphere can never get above freezing until the snow has melted, yet we have experienced days where the atmosphere gets warm while there is snow on the ground.
The contention that the gasses in the atmosphere are not absorbing radiated energy from the sun and being heated by the Earth is nonsense and violates the basic laws of thermodynamics that these “scientists” claim to believe:
All matter absorbs radiated energy until achieving stasis, where the energy absorbed by the object is equal to the energy radiated by the object..
Any person who has sweated or gone swimming knows that water absorbs heat and cools surfaces when it evaporates, yet the theory maintains that the water in the air is a “greenhouse gas” heating the surface, not cooling it.
Water will absorb heat and evaporate as sublimation even below freezing. A change in temperature will change the rate of evaporation and how much water the atmosphere can hold but as long as the water is above -30 C, below 100C, and the humidity is below 100 percent, it will continue to evaporate carry energy/heat into the atmosphere thereby cooling the surface.
The energy absorbed by the water is carried up into the atmosphere where it is released into space, causing the water to condense into rain drops and fall back to the Earth causing constant cooling. It takes 600 calories of energy to evaporate 1 gram of water so every gallon of rain that falls represents over two million calories of heat removed from the surface and transferred into space.
Water is the reason that the sun does not heat the surface of the Earth to 250 F like it does the surface of the moon. The “climate scientists” claim that it is the atmosphere that is absorbing this heat even while maintaining that the atmosphere does not absorb energy/heat from the sun.
The amount of water in the atmosphere varies from zero percent to 0.5 percent depending on the temperature, while the level of the other major “greenhouse gas” , CO2, is independent of temperature.
Currently the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04 percent which means when the water in the atmosphere is at 0.22 percent it is 50 times greater than the amount of CO2. In order to overcome the cooling affect of the water, every gram of CO2 must add 30,000 calories of heat to the surface in order to keep the temperature constant.
Even at a constant temperature, water can continue to evaporate increasing the amount in the air. When the level of water reaches 0.33 percent that same gram of CO2 must now add 45,000 calories of heat to the surface to maintain a constant temperature.
If the surface temperature is constant and providing the energy to the CO2, where is this additional energy coming from?
The contention that the transfer of energy between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere is primarily done by radiation is complete nonsense. While all matter above absolute zero will radiate energy, the transfer of energy between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere is almost exclusively done by convection or collisions between molecules.
This transfer of energy does not follow the laws of radiated energy, where the rate of energy transfer depends on the differencc between the temperatures of the objects, but the law of conservation of momentum, where the energy of the objects is immediately equalized.
The Pirani Gauge is an instrument used by the manufacturers of electronic components to determine how good a vacuum they have. It does this by heating an element above the surrounding temperature and seeing how much energy is needed to maintain that temperature, as molecules transfer energy away from the heating element by convection, compared to the energy needed when there are no gas molecules transferring energy away from the element.
It shows that the transfer of energy at sea level is almost exclusively done by convection or collisions, while the loss of heat into space by radiation is only becoming the dominant form of energy transfer in the thermosphere.
The use of the radiation as the means of energy loss by the Earth to support the Greenhouse Gas theory is beyond absurd. Energy is radiated in all directions, which means that only a small portion of the energy radiated by the CO2 molecules would affect the Earth’s surface.
The exchange of energy between the surface and the atmosphere is done by collisions or convection. The atmosphere contains 442 CO2 molecules for every million molecules gas molecules.
These gas molecules are outnumbered by molecules on the surface 1000 to one. HOW CAN 442 CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE HEAT A BILLION MOLECULES ON THE SURFACE?
Believing this is happening is beyond ridiculous.
Believing that those 442 CO2 molecules are getting the energy to heat the surface from those same molecules on the surface is beyond stupid.
These are the same people who claim that in the stratosphere the 10 ozone molecules per million in the ozone layer are blocking 95 percent of the ultraviolet light, emitted by the sun, from reaching the surface of the Earth.
Yet they acknowledge that those ozone molecules are created by oxygen molecule absorbing UV energy from the sun and splitting into oxygen atoms. The atmosphere is heated by oxygen and nitrogen molecules absorbing ultra violet light and converting it to heat.
The “climate experts” are non-thinking idiots and when you get your information from idiots, you become a fool ready for fleecing.
They have established a system in order to hide their ignorance, preserving their positions and jobs. The peer review system, used for the publication of science papers, ensures that only ideas that conform to the established beliefs will be seen by the members of the orthodoxy.
They do not want to hear what is true but only hear that what they believe is true.
Everyone knows that there is a concentration of incompetence in all governments. Once hired, never fired (except for being politically incorrect).
Promotion and pay is determined by tenure, not ability, so any competent person hired is soon frustrated by the idiocy they encounter and leave, which results is additional hiring increasing the level of incompetence.
By using regulations and funding the bureaucracy has spread this system into the schools and any industry they can control.
The people in charge need to have compliant subjects to maintain their rule and ignorance and bribery are the tools they use to maintain their control.
They are now trying to spread the philosophy that ability doesn’t matter throughout the population.
The movie “Idiocracy” has shifted from a comedy into a plan for a future reality.
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
| #
Even if it is trapped in the upper atmosphere the key point is that it came from the surface and so the surface cooled. Heat cannot be trapped anywhere because there is always a temperature difference and so it will always move to the coldest location and that is not the earth’s surface..
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
If you put two logs in a fire it will radiate more heat, even though the logs burn at the same temperature. This is because there are more molecules radiating energy.
The surface of the Earth is warmer because there are more molecules radiating energy, not because the molecules have greater energy than the molecules in the air. (Water in the air has more kinetic energy than wAter in the oceans.,)
The nitrogen and oxygen in the air are heated by the UV radiated by the sun so the matter higher in the atmosphere (closer to the sun and fewer atoms absorbing energy) have greater energy than lower molecules, there are just fewer of them radiating energy.
Herb
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“The surface of the Earth is warmer because there are more molecules radiating energy, not because the molecules have greater energy than the molecules in the air.”
You’re confusing intensive and extensive properties, Herb. Temperature is an intensive property, not an extensive property.
You are literally diametrically opposite to reality. A higher temperature object literally has higher energy density at all wavelengths than a lower temperature object:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png
Do remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (aka the radiation constant), per Stefan’s Law:
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You are foolishly pedantic.
For OBJECTS temperature is intensive. OBVIOUSLY this is because the molecules in an object have achieved a uniform temperature. So (as usual) your assertion has no relevance to your claim in that uniformity of temperature has NOTHING TO DO with different gasses at DIFFERENT pressures.
James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
People Don’t Think Simple Enough
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/People-Dont-Think-Simple-Enough-e2kjd0l
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Thanks for demonstrating that you haven’t the first faint clue why temperature is an intensive property, James. LOL
What Herb Rose wrote:
“The surface of the Earth is warmer because there are more molecules radiating energy, not because the molecules have greater energy than the molecules in the air.”
… is demonstrably false because he assumes temperature to be an extensive property (Object A at Temperate U, Volume V, Mass W is warmer simply because it’s got more volume or more mass than Object B at Temperature X, Volume Y, Mass Z)… we know that is not the case. Temperature does not depend upon mass or volume.
You’ll note that Herb didn’t mention in his mis-explanation of temperature, anything about “different gasses at DIFFERENT pressures” (your words)… and how, exactly, would different gases in our atmosphere even have “DIFFERENT pressures” (your words)?
As can be seen from his own words, he was comparing temperature of the planet’s surface vs. temperature of the atmosphere, and attempted to claim that it was warmer because the planet’s surface had “more molecules radiating energy” (extensive), rather than “greater energy than the molecules in the air” (intensive).
IOW, he was diametrically opposite to reality.
Perhaps, before going on the attack, you should read for comprehension, James.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
James McGinn wrote:
“So (as usual) your assertion has no relevance to your claim”
Claim = assertion, so James McGinn was in such a barking mad furious rush to attack (because I’ve drop-kicked him multiple times in the past on his goofy claims… especially about him being a “tornado expert” when he’s only ever seen one small F1 tornado from a distance, because there’s only been one tornado in his area since 1950; but also about his kooky claim that sentient cyclones in the upper atmosphere reach down, extending their tentacles hundreds of miles, avoiding clear sky, avoiding airplanes, only appearing from clouds, somehow remaining invisible to radar, to create tornadoes.) that he’s made the assertion:
“…your assertion has no relevance to your assertion”
or equivalently:
“…your claim has no relevance to your claim”
And that before he babbled something about atmospheric gases at different pressures (which isn’t even possible, and which had nothing to do with what Herb Rose was talking about).
That’s got to be a bit embarrassing, eh, James? LOL
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
Do you know how a thermometer works?
When taking the temperature of a liquid, energy is transferred to a potion of the measuring liquid in the thermometer. This causes the liquid to expand or contract changing the amount of measuring liquid exposed to a second medium (air) while the number of molecules transferring energy in the liquid remains constant. The change of amount of liquid in the air causes more energy to be lost to that medium or less energy to be absorbed from it. When the energy exchanged between the two mediums is equalized you have a temperature that represents the flow of energy between the mediums.
In the atmosphere the measuring liquid is exposed to one medium and the temperature reading represents when the flow of energy to and from that one medium are equal.
When the density of the air is less there are fewer molecule transferring energy to and from the measuring liquid, (unlike in a liquid where the number if molecules being transferred is constant). You maintain that the change in number of molecules transferring energy has no effect on the amount of energy being absorb and the change in temperature, as density decreases, is because of the lower kinetic energy of the molecules.
The bottom of the Grand Canyon is always 10 degrees hotter than the air at the top of the Grand Canyon. If these gas molecules are hotter why don’t they expand and rise to the top, as the ideal gas law states? It is hotter at the bottom because there are more molecules, with less kinetic energy, transferring energy to the thermometer.
Here’s something you should try. Divide the temperature at an altitude by the density at that altitude and plot the values on a graph. Do you believe the zig zag graph showing the measured temperature represents a more accurate picture of how energy flows from a source than the line you just plotted?
Herb
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“It is hotter at the bottom because there are more molecules, with less kinetic energy, transferring energy to the thermometer.”
T = 2 KE / DOF k_B, Herb… you’ve just stated the exact opposite. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules, but you’ve just stated that “it is hotter” because the molecules “have less kinetic energy”.
In statistical mechanics the following molecular equation is derived from first principles: P = n k_B T for a given volume.
Therefore T = (P / (n k_B)) for a given volume.
Where: k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J·K−1); T = absolute temperature (K); P = absolute pressure (Pa); n = number of particles
If n = 1, then T = P / k_B in units of K / m³ for a given volume.
Don’t worry about the K / m³ units… note the “for a given volume” blurb. We will cancel volume in a bit.
We can relate velocity to kinetic energy via the equation:
v = √(v_x² + v_y² + v_z²) = √((DOF k_B T) / m) = √(2 KE / m)
As velocity increases, kinetic energy increases.
Kinetic theory gives the static pressure P for an ideal gas as:
P = ((1 / 3) (n / V)) m v² = (n k_B T) / V
Combining the above with the ideal gas law gives:
(1 / 3)(m v²) = k_B T
∴ T = mv² / 3 k_B for 3 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / k_B for 1 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / DOF k_B
See what I did there? I equated kinetic energy to pressure over that volume, thus canceling that volume, then solved for T.
Again, Herb. Crack a book and study.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
Your problem is that everything is based on theory, not reality. The air at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is 10 degrees hotter than the ar at the top. That’s reality. The thermometer measuring the kinetic energy of the molecules is your erroneous theory. If a thermometer is measuring the kinetic energy of molecules then changing the depth the thermometer is submerged in boiling water will not effect the kinetic energy of the molecules but it does effect the measured temperature.
The difference between a barometer and a thermometer is the the measuring liquid in a thermometer is totally enclosed in glass while a barometer has liquid exposed to the atmosphere. You claim that this enclosing layer of glass changes the units the instruments are measuring from weight per unit area to mass times velocity squared. Both instruments are measuring the momentum of the molecules striking them, mass times velocity.
You correctly stated that a law of physics is always followed, without exception. When I used your car and concrete block example showing that the 2nd LOT was wrong and you accepted that the car would lose velocity and the concrete block gain energy, it did not change your belief that the 2nd LOT was correct. You still use theories based on the 2nd law to support the belief that the nonsense you believe is reality and try to modify reality to conform to your beliefs.
I am not going to waste time and money studying nonsense completely divorced from reality that turned a smart person like you into a fool. You believe that the speed of light is a constant and any change in time must produce a change in distance. When an object gets closer to a center of gravity and time expands the distance to the center of gravity increases. Enjoy your life in La La land I will remain in reality.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again LOL,
Temperature is measurement of energy radiated in the infrared wavelength. What wavelengths an object absorbs and radiates depends on the bonds it contains. All objects radiate energy in a longer wavelength than the wavelength it absorbs. Since absorbed radiated energy comes from one direction while radiated energy is emitted in all directions, in order to have the law of conservation of energy be true, the emitted energy must have a longer wavelength.
An oxygen molecule absorbs uv radiation coming from the sun but It does not radiate uv or visible light. The energy lost to achieve equilibrium is done by the motion of the molecule as IR radiation, not by the double bond holding the molecule together which is absorbing radiation..
Your assertion that objects have higher density of energy at all wavelengths is wrong. The spectrum an element radiates are at distinct wavelengths, not all wavelengths.
Herb
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Temperature is measurement of energy radiated in the infrared wavelength.”
Wrong. An object at thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment will have ZERO radiant exitance regardless of its temperature (the system reaches a state of quiescence, the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium)… what is its temperature according to your mis-definition in that case, Herb? It would have to be absolute zero, which is, quite obviously, ludicrous, therefore your mis-definition of temperature is incorrect.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
The amount of energy an object contains is determined by its mass. The amount of energy it radiates depends on its area. If you burn multiple small logs instead one log of equal mass it will produce more heat because the single log has less surface area.
Objects have internal energy as well as radiated energy. Water is an example of where the amount of energy being radiated is not equal to the energy being absorbed. Try making a steam engine using a liquid other than water.
Herb
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“The amount of energy an object contains is determined by its mass.”
You’re conflating energy (extensive property) and temperature (intensive property), Herb. And you’re conflating surface area (extensive) with temperature (intensive).
The radiant exitance of an object is in units of Watts per UNIT area, Herb. Get that, Herb? Per UNIT area… you’re conflating total surface area with unit area. IOW, you’re conflating radiant exitance (radiant flux per unit area, W m-2) and radiant flux (W).
As I’ve done in the past and as I’ll likely do in the future, I encourage you to buckle down, crack a book and study, Herb.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Try making a steam engine using a liquid other than water.”
Trivial.
Supercritical CO2 gives higher thermal efficiency than water/steam:
https://energy.wisc.edu/industry/technology-highlights/supercritical-co2-gas-turbines
Hydrofluorocarbons can also be used, although they are highly regulated.
Herb Rose
| #
Hello again LOL,
Where, in reality, do you find a “black body” that absorbs all radiated energy? It is the proton in the nucleus. Two object composed of different elements and having different structures will equalize, even though they cannot absorb the energy being radiated from the other object.
Energy is a subatomic building block attracted to positive matter. It displaces electrons from protons to form atoms and it is the repelling force of these electrons on energy that determines what wavelengths of energy are absorbed and radiated by matter. The energy field is uniform, decreasing from positive matter, allowing all objects to equalize with that radiated energy. The quantum nature of the energy we observe is not due to the property of energy but due to the nature of the objects absorbing and radiating energy.
Herb
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Where, in reality, do you find a “black body” that absorbs all radiated energy? It is the proton in the nucleus.”
Wrong. Nucleal protons do not absorb EM radiation. The bound electrons absorb resonant EM radiation into electronic mode quantum states. By the same token, resonant EM radiation can be absorbed into vibrational mode quantum states, and into rotational mode quantum states.
Now, what similarities do you see for the parts of an atom or molecule which absorb radiation, Herb? They can all move, yes? The bound electron can quantum jump, the vibrational modes can increase their magnitude, the rotational modes can increase their rotational rate.
The proton is locked into the nucleus. It cannot move (except as a part of that nucleus), therefore it does not absorb EM radiation.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Energy is a subatomic building block attracted to positive matter. It displaces electrons from protons to form atoms and it is the repelling force of these electrons on energy that determines what wavelengths of energy are absorbed and radiated by matter. The energy field is uniform, decreasing from positive matter, allowing all objects to equalize with that radiated energy. ”
I see what you’re attempting to do, you’re attempting an explanation for why a bound electron doesn’t ‘spiral-in’ to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s), given the extreme attraction at such small distances between electron and proton… and you’ve hit upon the idea that it must be energy that does it, and that energy must be absorbed by protons and ‘push out’ the electrons so they don’t ‘spiral-in’.
Except that’s not how it works. The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy.
Bear with me, this gets a bit involved…
The sinusoidal ‘waves’ of photons are not actually waves… they’re spirals.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161024110935if_/http://staff.washington.edu/bradleyb/spiralsynth/fig3.1.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/20181117044308if_/https://www.dsprelated.com/josimages_new/mdft/img449.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20181117053048if_/https:/www.dsprelated.com/josimages_new/mdft/img463.png
The first image above shows the real (cosine… labeled ‘Re’ in the image) and imaginary (sine… labeled ‘Im’ in the image) components of an electromagnetic ‘wave’. When viewed in line with its direction of travel, it will appear to be a circle, and when viewed orthogonal to its direction of travel, it will appear to be a sinusoid, when in reality it’s a spiral.
This is because a sinusoid is a circular function.
https://i.imgur.com/zofvpkI.png
You’ll note the peak amplitude of the sinusoid is analogous to the radius of the circle, the peak-to-peak amplitude is analogous to the diameter of the circle, and the frequency of the sinusoid is analogous to the rotational rate of the circle. You’ll further note the circumference of the circle is equal to 2 π radians, and the wavelength of a sinusoid is equal to 2 π radians, so the wavelength of the sinusoid is analogous to the circumference of the circle.
Thus the magnetic field and electric field (oscillating in quadrature about a common axis) of a photon is a circle geometrically transformed into a spiral by the photon’s movement through space-time. This is why all singular photons are circularly polarized either parallel or antiparallel to their direction of motion. This is a feature of their being massless and hence having no rest frame (if a photon had a rest frame, no rest mass and no momentum equals nothing, so massless particles must remain in motion), which precludes their exhibiting the third state expected of a spin-1 particle (for a spin-1 particle at rest, it has three spin eigenstates: +1, -1, 0, along the z axis… no rest frame means no 0-spin eigenstate). A macroscopic electromagnetic wave is the tensor product of many singular photons, and thus may be linearly or elliptically polarized if all singular photons comprising the macroscopic electromagnetic wave are not circularly polarized in the same direction.
This is also why photons do not really travel in a ‘straight line’ (the path of least space)… they travel along the path of least time. Since invariant-mass objects such as planets and stars warp (expand) space (and thus slow down time), this causes light to ‘bend around’ large celestial objects (the cause of gravitational lensing), which is the phenomenon which originally substantiated Einstein’s Relativity theory.
For a practical lab experiment, go outside on a sunny day and stretch out a Slinky so its shadow falls upon a surface perpendicular to the incoming sunlight… you’ll see the shadow of the spiral of the Slinky appears as a sinusoid. Now turn the Slinky so its axis is aligned parallel to the incoming light such that the light is falling through the center of it, you’ll see the shadow of the spiral of the Slinky appears as a circle. Our oscilloscopes show us a shadow of reality because they can only account for the electric field and not the magnetic field of electromagnetic radiation.
The above ties into vacuum polarization (due to the high charge density in the vicinity of the nucleus of an atom) creating a geometrical transform of resonant scalar quantum vacuum wave modes to a circular (spherical, given the DOF) orbital path of an atom’s bound electron(s) (ie: the bound electron ‘spirals’ around the nucleus, (acted upon by the Lorentz force of the EM interaction between bound electron and nucleal proton(s) and sustained by energy from the quantum vacuum), which is why a bound electron must have an integer number of de Broglie waves in its orbit (the underlying reason for quantization of energy and hence the basis of Quantum Mechanics) or it sets up a destructive-interference orbit which lowers electron orbital radius, which is how and why electron orbital radius falls to ground state from a higher excited state when the excitation energy sustaining it in that higher orbital is removed). This is what feeds energy to a ground-state bound electron to prevent it ‘spiraling in’ to the oppositely-charged proton(s) in the nucleus. At its ground state, the energy obtained from the quantum vacuum exactly equals the energy emitted via virtual photons (magnetism… which all invariant-mass matter exhibits (usually diamagnetism, although certain valance electron configurations allow ferromagnetism to override the underlying diamagnetism)), as Boyer[1], Haisch and Ibison[2], Puthoff[3] and NASA[4] showed.
[1] https://sci-hub.se/10.1103/physrevd.11.790
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713220130/https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0106/0106097.pdf
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225420/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13330878_Ground_state_of_hydrogen_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation-determined_state
“We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom.”
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20180719194558/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf
“The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the ‘orbiting’ electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.”
This ties into the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics (2LoT)… an excited bound electron is always trying to emit a photon to achieve a lower energy state, but the energy sustaining the bound electron in its current state prevents the photon being emitted because energy can only flow from a higher to a lower energy density region. When that excitation energy is removed, a photon can be emitted, electron orbit no longer has an integer number of de Broglie waves, a destructive-interference orbit is thus set up, and the electron falls to a lower state in which there are an integer number of de Broglie waves in the orbit. At ground state, energy flows from the quantum vacuum to sustain the electron in its ground state orbital as it emits Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons (a point charge undergoing acceleration (in this case angular acceleration) in relation to its electric field will emit Larmor radiation)[5], which it does because the quantum vacuum is anisotropic (it fluctuates) under vacuum polarization in the high charge density in the vicinity of the nucleus of an atom. Thus 2LoT holds even in the quantum realm.
[5] https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9910019.pdf
This ties into the very underpinnings of the meta-stability of invariant-mass matter (and hence the continued existence of the universe as we know it) and provides insight into the connection between classical and quantum theory.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“You believe that the speed of light is a constant and any change in time must produce a change in distance.”
Your inability to read minds goes perfectly with your inability to get your fantasy physics to resolve with reality, Herb.
I have repeatedly stated that light can only be considered to have a constant speed in vacua in the absence of gravitational fields, which doesn’t exist anywhere in the universe. This is completely in keeping with what Einstein himself stated, and in fact, I’ve already alluded to same when I spoke of gravitational lensing.
From my writings:
“But c is the speed of light! It doesn’t change!”, you may say. Yeah, no. That only applies to Einstein’s first attempt at a theory of relativity, Special Relativity. In General Relativity, c is only constant in a constant gravitational field (which doesn’t exist anywhere in the universe due to the Inverse Square Law and the gravitational interaction being a long-range force) and in an inertial frame of reference.
Einstein reiterated this fact many times, a few examples of which are below:
1913: “I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.”
The Equivalence Principle states that there is no functional difference between actual translational acceleration and gravitational acceleration.
1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.”
1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable.”
This is how gravitational lensing (ie: the curvature of light rays around a gravitating body) occurs, which was what originally corroborated Einstein’s theory.
Who would have ever thought that you, Herb Rose, would be agreeing with Einstein, eh? Given all you get wrong, it must have been that you’ve blindly stumbled upon one small bit of reality. LOL
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
You believe in theories developed from basic premises then admit the premises are wrong but maintain the belief in the validity of the theories. If the speed of light is not constant in reality then there is no “c”. Not only is E=mc^2 wrong but so is general relativity. The warping of the “space time continuum” is a change of distance and time based on the speed of light being constant.
The photon (which you believe to be real) was proposed as a particle with no mass but now has mass just as the neutrino (which you believe in) was created to make the observed energy of radioactive decay conform to E=mc^2 was changed from a particle with no mass or charge to three types of particles with mass (necessitated by its ability to change from one type to another which was
impossible if traveling at the speed of light)
You talk of my fantasy reality while admitting that your physics has no basis in reality. Light is a wave traveling in the energy and electric fields radiated from matter. Its speed changes with the strength of the fields. (Newton’s premise that object travel in a straight line unless a force acts upon them is wrong. Object will maintain their energy unless energy is added or lost.)
Now you need to admit that gravity is not a function of mass but of energy. Orbiting satellites are in equilibrium with the energy coming from objects, True for orbiting planets, moons, and binary asteroids. All the masses of planets or other bodies with satellites calculated using mass as the source of gravity are wrong and there are no “gas giants” in the solar system.
You need to abandon all the beliefs based on theory not reality. This includes fusion, nuclear forces, the plethora of sub atomic particles created to preserve theory instead of based on evidence.
Herb.
Wisenox
| #
This debate remains circular until the physics of the nobel gasses are included.
Reply
Tom
| #
Anybody can be a scientist. All that is required is observation and comparative analysis of what has been observed over time. My observation of the climate in my area reveals that there has been some change but in the opposite direction of what the global warming clowns tell us. There is no trend over the last 60 years towards warmer weather and climate. Storms are docile and less frequent overall.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
Excellent article.
If only the faux “climate scientists” would read it and apply logic and common sense, there would be no “climate crisis”.
However, there is about as much chance of that happening as there is of a person standing on the Florida Keys with a Walmart electric fan trying to redirect a hurricane.
.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mr. Richard Rose,
Well written article. Very well written.
Energy from the sun heats tropical oceans and land. Warmed air then rises. Cooler air from the north rushes towards the tropics to replace the rising warm air.
Thus, we have Trade Winds, which are quite strong and steady.
Trade Winds then create waves and ocean currents. The amount of mechanical kinetic energy in an ocean current, such as the Gulf Stream, is massive and humbling.
I don’t recall any ‘climate scientist’ accounting for any of this reality in their review of the ‘company books’?
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Also, as the author points out, 400+ molecules out of one million are controlling the climates?
This is the equivalent of being in a sports stadium with 10,000 fans, and the three or four girls with sparkly jumpers are heating up the entire stadium? Really??
In actuality, the ‘Greenhouse Gas’ folks aren’t even claiming that. They claim that only since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 gas atmospheric content has increased by a whopping 100 parts per million, and that increase has caused an average ‘global’ temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius, throwing us all into panic mode. How many humans, plants, or animals can even detect the difference between 20 degrees Celsius and 21 degrees Celsius?
So, let’s recalculate the heat content 100 ppm of CO2, using Specific Heat numbers. Although, that isn’t quite fair, as virtually all ‘Environmental Scientists’ have no understanding of basic Thermodynamics and Chemistry.
As the author said, “We are dealing with idiots posing as scientists.”
Reply
MattH
| #
A few true statements interspersed with absolute garbage.
If Herb changed his surname as well the article would still carry the finger prints of the same unfortunate claims and arguments.
Reply
David Hamilton Russell
| #
This article is not compelling. More compelling is to show using the alarmists’ own data that their conclusions are absurd. Here’s my stab at exactly this (Note the images don’t copy, but you can retrieve them using the links):
[More] Atmospheric CO2 Cannot Warm Earth’s Surface
1. There can be no heat transferred from the atmosphere to Earth’s surface without violating the 2nd Law, because with few exceptions (e.g., a temperature inversion), the air over land is always cooler than the land beneath. Heat transfer is from the sun to Earth’s surface, then to the air. The temp lapse rate is everywhere negative in the tropospheric air column. Let’s start with the Earth’s surface, where insolation drives the tropospheric temperature:
2. [From the below, latest Global Energy Budget] The average solar energy absorbed by Earth’s surface is163.3W/M2. But on average 86.4 W/M2 of that is removed by water evaporation, which both cools the surface and has nothing to do with CO2. Also, an average 18.4W/M2 is removed by conduction from the surface to the air and 99.9% of that goes into the non-GHGs in the air, because they make up 99.9% of the air (conduction impacts all air molecules proportionally). Thus, only 163.3 – 86.4 -18.4 = 58.5 W/M2 of earth absorbed solar energy might interact with the air’s CO2 when emitted by Earth as IR. However,….
3. CO2’s resonant IR frequencies make up only 15% of Earth emitted IR according to MSFT’s A.I., Copilot. 15% of 58.5 = 8.78W/M2.
4. But close to Earth surface, 94% of CO2 absorbed IR is conducted away by collisions with other nearby [99%+ non-radiating, non-GHGs] before the IR energized CO2 molecules can radiate [See F K Reinhart (2017), bottom of page 4]. This leaves 6% of 8.78 =0.526 W/M2 of near surface CO2 absorbed energy that will actually radiate on average.
5. Only 50% of said radiation will be downward. So 0.526 becomes 0.263 W/M2 back to Earth.
6. However, there is a considerable overlap in the absorption frequencies of water vapor with CO2. From visual inspection of the below chart I estimate a 50% overlap. So, 0.26 becomes only 0.13 W/M2 of surface back radiation (BR) due to due to CO2 capturing and returning surface IR emissions.
7. Finally, only 4% of atmospheric CO2 is human sourced. (the rest is naturally occurring).
Q.E.D. an immaterial [and immeasurably small] amount of BR from current levels of human sourced atmospheric CO2. But what about future additional human emissions?
There are some assumptions/unknowables with rising future CO2 emissions:
a. That the overlap of CO2 resonant frequencies with those of WV will remain the same (or be immaterially different);
b. That %s of CO2 uptake from global greening will not change.
c. That human CO2 emissions remain at about 4% of total CO2 emissions;
d. That oceans will continue to outgas CO2 with rising temps, whether they be the result of natural or man-made warming to the tune of an additional 83pp of CO2 per 1C rise in global ocean surface temps. [note: This suggests that over 83/140, or 4/7ths+ of the 140ppm increase of CO2 levels from 280 to today’s 420 is coming from the oceans, as ocean surface temps have gone up ~1C since pre-Industrial times]
MSFT’s CoPilot A.I. says CO2 alone in the air causes 9C of the 33C warming from all GHGs (Note: I remember when this was only 3.3C. When I queried what source CoPilot used to come up with 9C, it said it couldn’t cite any source other than “it’s generally agreed”). Still, since based on my above analysis that human sourced CO2 BR today only causes an unmeasurable amount of warming, it’s implausible that more CO2 will make any measurable difference before the next ice age.
Links:
Global energy budget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
https://www.entrelemanetjura.ch/BLOG_WP_351/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017.01-20-FKR-sur-CO2.pdf [F K Reinhart (2017) paper – relevant passage, bottom page 4, emphasis added]:
“After an absorption event, the CO2 molecule is in an excited state with an estimated lifetime, τrad = (uj / ∆uj)2 / ν ≈ 6 µs for the 15 µm lines. This corresponds to the spontaneous radiative decay rate, Rrad = 1.7×105 s-1. Collisions with the dominant gases of the atmosphere lead to a non-radiative decay. At sea level and T = 288 K, the collision rate of all gas molecules is approximately the inverse of the mean free time between collisions. Its value is 7 x 109 s-1. The present CO2 concentration amounts to cco2 = 400 ppm. This leads to a non-radiative collision rate with the CO2 Rnon = 28 x 105 s-1. The chances of radiative emission in this situation is given by Rrad / (Rrad + Rnon ) ≈ 0.06. In the troposphere, where most of the absorption takes place, most of the absorbed energy by the CO2 heats the dominant atmospheric gases.”
Overlap of different GHG resonant frequencies which I estimate at 50% between CO2 and WV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.svg
Microsoft’s AI (CoPilot) when asked says:
“Approximately 15% of the Earth’s outgoing infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed by atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This absorption occurs primarily in specific wavelength bands where CO2 molecules are most effective at capturing IR energy.”
Copilot also confirms that a 1C increase in average global sea surface temperature would imply an 83 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 following Henry’s Law.
What are we to say about the massive (and circular) IR quantities in the above Global Energy Budget (398W/M2 up and 340W/M2 down), if they’re not coming from GHG warming the surface? Well, the way it works is that GHGs essentially warm the air via conduction (molecular collisions, draining energy from IR exited CO2 molecules before they can re-radiate), not the surface directly. However, the balance of thermal energy in the troposphere air parcels is altitude dependent. Gravity distributes the energy of parcels of air with altitude by the formula:
Total energy of an air parcel = potential energy + kinetic energy.
We live at the bottom of this gradient where the gravitational potential energy is zero and the kinetic (thermal) energy is at its maximum. As a warm air parcel rises it cools and becomes denser/heavier, so it contains [more] potential energy to be released when this parcel falls back to the surface. Where does this potential energy come from? — from the kinetic energy of this air when it was warmer and lower in altitude. When this now colder air falls, the potential energy is converted back to molecular kinetic energy, which manifests as its temperature rising.
Only by ignoring how gravity distributes total energy up the tropospheric air column can you make sense of how 163.3W/M2 of surface insolation can be converted into 398 W/M2 of surface emissions. Remember that at any given tropospheric altitude the average “temperature” of all molecules is the same. As CO2 is 400ppp, or 1 molecule in 2500, thus the thermal energy of tropospheric atmosphere (assuming dry air) is 99.9% in the non-GHG, non-radiating air.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
I’ll go you one better… I’ll mathematically demonstrate that the climatologists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects, and because the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation assumes emission to 0 K by the very definition of idealized blackbodies, that inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects, which conjures from thin air their purported “backradiation”, which they claim causes their “greenhouse effect”, with which they designate polyatomics (CO2, CH4, H2O) as “greenhouse gases”, by which they claim certain polyatomics will cause CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2).
I’ll demonstrate mathematically the entire underlying premise of the entirety of AGW / CAGW is unphysical, thus the entirety of the AGW / CAGW ‘industry’ and all of its offshoots (carbon credit trading, net zero, carbon capture and sequestration, etc.) are all based upon a process which is physically impossible.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
David,
You might have simply stopped at your point #1. Cold air can’t ‘warm’ anything.
Brevity is a fine trait.
KD
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi David,
Temperature, as measured by a thermometer, is not the kinetic energy of the gas molecules but the energy transferred to the thermometer by the momentum of the gas molecules colliding with it. Since the density of the atmosphere decreases with increasing altitude, the amount of energy transferred decreases. If you divide the temperature at an altitude by the density at that altitude you will find the energy/molecule increases with increasing altitude. This shows the atmosphere is heated by the sun, not the Earth.
In order for a law of physics to be true there must be no exceptions, any exception invalidates the law. According to the 2nd LOT energy flows from the object with greater kinetic energy (heat) to the object with less kinetic energy (cool). According to the law when a small car runs into the rear of a slower large truck the speed of the car should increase and the truck slow down since the truck has more kinetic energy. This is not the case since the transfer of energy by collision/convection is governed by the law of conservation of momentum, where energy is transferred from the object with greater velocity to the object with less velocity regardless of their masses.
The data used by “climate scientists” is based on theoretical calculations, not reality. If you use the “Search” function in PSI to look up “An Interview with Tom Shula” you will see that the reality is that radiation doesn’t become the primary means of energy transfer until well into the thermosphere.
Herb
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Temperature, as measured by a thermometer, is not the kinetic energy of the gas molecules but the energy transferred to the thermometer by the momentum of the gas molecules colliding with it.”
Wrong. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules.
T = 2 KE / DOF k_B
In statistical mechanics the following molecular equation is derived from first principles: P = n k_B T for a given volume.
Therefore T = (P / (n k_B)) for a given volume.
Where: k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J·K−1); T = absolute temperature (K); P = absolute pressure (Pa); n = number of particles
If n = 1, then T = P / k_B in units of K / m³ for a given volume.
Don’t worry about the units of K / m³… we will cancel volume in a bit.
We can relate velocity to kinetic energy via the equation:
v = √(v_x² + v_y² + v_z²) = √((DOF k_B T) / m) = √(2 KE / m)
As velocity increases, kinetic energy increases.
Kinetic theory gives the static pressure P for an ideal gas as:
P = ((1 / 3) (n / V)) m v² = (n k_B T) / V
Combining the above with the ideal gas law gives:
(1 / 3)(m v²) = k_B T
∴ T = mv² / 3 k_B for 3 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / k_B for 1 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / DOF k_B
See what I did there? I equated kinetic energy to pressure over that volume, thus canceling that volume, then solved for T.
You’ll note that this is how Sandia National Laboratories calculates temperature:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170214051350/https://lammps.sandia.gov/doc/compute_temp_chunk.html
You will further note the correlation between the above and the Bernoulli Principle. As dynamic pressure in a given DOF increases, stagnation temperature in that DOF increases, while temperature and pressure in the other 2 DOF decreases.
You will further note that designers of high pressure systems, designing pressure relief piping, must design the pressure relief piping and components to handle temperatures as much as 3 times higher than the static temperature of the fluid being relieved… because of the above.
Reply
herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
Does LOL stand for Lack Of Logic?
Heat an oven to 100C and boil some water. The thermometer measure the same value meaning they have absorbed the same amount of energy from molecules colliding with them a6nd the measuring liquid have expanded equally.
In the oven the air molecules are gaining energy directly from a heating element of flame and taking that energy to the thermometer. In the boiling water the water molecules are absorbing energy from the container which is absorbing energy from the heating element or flame. In a camp fire you can boil water in a paper cup because the water absorbing energy from the paper prevent it from reaching its ignition point.
If both thermometers have the same energy (reading the same temperature) the fewer molecules in the oven must have greater ke than the more plentiful water molecules and the energy being transferred to the thermometer in the water must result from more molecules with less ke transferring energy.
If you still believe your math try putting your hand in the oven. It will not burn you because, even though the air molecules have high ke, that energy is distributed to many more molecules on your hand. Now put your hand in the boiling water. The molecules have less ke but that energy is being transferred to fewer molecules on your hand and the result will be a burned hand (on the surface where the energy is transferred).
Herb
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“This is not the case since the transfer of energy by collision/convection is governed by the law of conservation of momentum, where energy is transferred from the object with greater velocity to the object with less velocity regardless of their masses.”
Wrong, and what you claim doesn’t even make sense. If collisions are governed by the conservation of momentum law (and they are), then a collision cannot be “regardless of their masses” (one cannot disregard mass), because: p = mv
Linear momentum is the product of the mass and the velocity of an object.
You can’t just make stuff up, Herb. Crack a book and study.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
If you use the “Search” function in PSI to look up “An Interview with Tom Shula” you will see that the reality is that radiation doesn’t become the primary means of energy transfer until well into the thermosphere.
JMcG:
Shula’s realization reveals how much blatant dimwittedness is involved with BOTH SIDES of the continuing CO2 Forcing debate/discussion.
James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
From Whence Comes Low Pressure
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/qaAFMVRXtKb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mr. McGinn,
You are correct.
Warm air rises, cool air falls. Wind does far more to cool the Earth than simple radiation.
Question: What is the rate of cooling of the surface of the Moon? Is it less than, or greater than the rate of cooling of a desert on the Earth?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
During a lunar eclipse the moon goes from +250 F to -250 F due to radiated energy. It is the water in the atmosphere that moderates temperature change on Earth. If you graph the temperature/density of the air at different altitudes you will see that the energy of molecules increases in a straight line in the troposphere, where water is, and an exponential curve at higher altitudes.
Herb
Reply