TNT Radio Exclusive: Why CO2 Isn’t A Temperature-Control Knob
Civil engineer and PSI co-founder Joe Olson joined The Hrvoje Moric Show to debunk the greenhouse gas theory. Olson explains how CO2 has not been proven to warm the climate; it has been shown to cool and is even used in industry as a refrigerant.
Olson details how there are, in fact, four known ways in which CO2 cools the climate. This is a claim made by PSI that has never been refuted by mainstream academics.
Olson says the greenhouse effect (GHE) is based on faulty computer models fed with bad mathematical calculations.
Either through honest error or deliberate manipulation, the climate science community is on a bandwagon crusade pursuing a biased globalist agenda toward massive depopulation. LISTEN:
h/t JOS
Trackback from your site.
John O'Sullivan
| #
Enjoyable listening! Joe Olson, speaking eloquently on the science contained in our co-authored book, Slaying the Sky Dragon Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. Really nailing the lie that Co2 drives climate. Thank you, Joe!
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Sky Dragon Slaying had another interesting interview on Saturday, Aug 06 with Dr Clifford Saunders on EMR and biological systems.
Reply
nohomehere
| #
Co2 is not a greenhouse gas!
God would not create humans and animals ect… with built in self destruction!
Reply
Rocky
| #
The physics behind radiative insulation is simple. Willis Eschenbach’s steel greenhouse example explains the basics. How does Joseph Olson solve that problem? Is his solution different?
As for the more complicated aspects of radiative transfer through gases, Happer has published on the topic and shows exactly how CO2 can cause warming.
CO2 is a refrigerant FOR THE STRATOSPHERE. Additional CO2 causes the SURFACE to increase in temperature.
But seriously, if either O’Sullivan or Olson want to provide a different solution to the steel greenhouse problem than what Eschenbach showed, then I will gladly show how their solution is incorrect.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
Since the charts show the temperature/kinetic energy of molecules increases in the stratosphere, how exactly are colder/less kinetic energy molecules below them transferring energy to them by radiation?
Herb
Reply
Rocky
| #
Here is the answer to your question Herb.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/why-does-the-stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/
Did you ever get a chance to look at that elastic collision simulator?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
The link you cite is a perfect example of idiot pretend scientists who looks for any excuse to placate the brainless.
The concentration ozone in the ozone layers 10 ppm. Evidently this gas concentrated at the top of the stratosphere (unlike the other gases) and preferentially radiating the energy downward instead of in all directions. (if it radiated it upward the fewer molecules would equalize with higher ke/molecule) What creates this ozone? It takes 500,000 joules/mole to split O2 into the oxygen atoms necessary to create O3. Where does this energy come from? (Hint: it’s not the surface of the Earth.)
I looked at the simulator but I’m not sure I buy it.When an object is moving away from a slower object how much energy is transferred and how much retained? It does support my contention that cold can heat hot with convection, even though I agree with its conclusion.
Herb
Reply
Rocky
| #
Calm down Herb. The links in that site that I provided to you explain how the GHE cools the stratosphere.
Now, why do you keep avoiding my question? Have you looked at that 2D collision simulator that proves that a slower low energy particle can transfer its energy to a faster high energy particle?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
You haven’t explained how cooler objects can radiate energy through hotter objects sd lose energy.
Try this with your simulator.Have objects one traveling at 10 and at a15 angle strike object 2 with a velocity of 20 and a 0 angle and see the transfer of energy. Now have object 1 with a velocity of 10 and an angle of 0 and object 2 with a velocity of 20 and an angle of 15 collide and see the transfer of energy. Do you see why I don’t buy your simulator?
‘Herb
Rocky
| #
The simulator is correct Herb. Momentum is conserved in the x direction, momentum is conserved in the y direction, and energy is conserved.
Do the math yourself if you don’t believe it.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
You really believe that in both collisions, if the two objects maintain their same mass, same velocity, and same angle of collision, you can get different results on energy transfer?
Herb
Rocky
| #
Herb, the orientation plane of impact with respect to the faster ball was different in the two collisions. This should be obvious to you if you actually ran the simulations.
Again, do the math. Momentum is conserved and energy is conserved if you set e=1.
Rocky
| #
Well Herb, I was wrong. The plane of contact was the same. But of course you were wrong. The energy transfer is exactly as it should be for the two collisions you list. Did you set e=1?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
Yes I set e to 1. Elastic collision.
In the first collision I set speed of 1 at 10 and angle at 15. The speed of 2 was 20and the angle was 0.
For collision 2 I changed the angle of 1 to 0 and the angle of 2 to 15. In the first collision the speed of 1 decreased while the speed of 2 increased. In the second collision the speed of 1 increased while the speed of 2 decreased.
Herb
Rocky
| #
Yes Herb, and that is exactly what should happen for those collisions. Do the math yourself. X-momentum is conserved, y-momentum is conserved, and energy is conserved.
It all works out. The simulator is correct. Your understanding of elastic collisions is what is flawed.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
No, it’s your understanding of physics that’s wrong. Energy (V^2) does not flow from less to more.
Herb
Rocky
| #
The simulator proves you wrong Herb. Do the math. Every single collision has both momentum and energy conserved. If you disagree then PROVE IT MATHEMATICALLY.
You can’t because the simulator is correct.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
You choose to believe the simulator and math. I believe the laws of thermodynamics and reality.
Herb
Rocky
| #
C’mon now Herb. I choose to believe the laws of physics. What law of thermodynamics states “Energy (V^2) does not flow from less to more”?
I’m sorry to have to inform you that there is none. Elastic collisions with e=1 are governed by conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. Period.
If you don’t believe the math or the simulator, then I suggest you spend some time in a pool hall and reproduce the collision that I originally gave you. You will see that when the impact plane is as shown on the simulator then the slower ball does indeed give all of its energy to the faster ball.
Your inability to understand this illustrates your lack of understanding of physics.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
It’s called the second law of thermodynamics and it has to do with energy, not heat. Objects do not transfer mass.
Herb
Rocky
| #
Herb – The second law of thermodynamics makes no such claim about elastic collisions between particles. That you think it does is your own lack of understanding.
Seriously, go to a pool hall and reproduce the collision. It will experimentally PROVE that your claims are wrong.
Herb Rose
| #
Rocky,
The 2 law applies to any transfer of energy, whether it be by convection or radiation. A slower object does not increase the speed of a faster object no matter what the masses are. Your total lack of thinking ability makes you a parrot spouting the stupid answers you learned in school. There is no point in discussing physics if you cannot comprehend what the laws of thermodynamics mean.
Rocky
| #
Yes, the 2nd law does apply to any energy transfer. The second law does not state that a low energy object cannot transfer energy to a high energy object. That is YOUR lack of understanding of the second law. In a perfectly elastic collision between two particles the entropy of the system DOES NOT CHANGE and thus the second law is not violated.
Again, GO TO A POOL HALL and do the experiment yourself. Or you can go to an arcade and do the same type of experiment on an air hockey table.
YOU ARE WRONG HERB. You don’t understand basic physics.
“A slower object does not increase the speed of a faster object no matter what the masses are.”
Physical REALITY proves you WRONG.
Herb Rose
| #
Rocky,
Use the search tab on the front page and search for my article “How Cold Heats Hot”. You are confusing energy with kinetic energy. An object with lower velocity/energy cannot transfer velocity/energy to an object with less energy like your simulator does. The object with the greater velocity transfers velocity to the object with less velocity regardless of mass.
Rocky
| #
Herb – This is Physics 101. You don’t even understand how to calculate the solutions for simple elastic collisions. This is something that first year undergraduates learn how to do.
ANYONE, including YOU, can do the EXPERIMENT on an air hockey table to PROVE that YOU are wrong.
This is not a matter of theory taught in schools, this is a matter of EXPERIMENTAL FACTS.
You are wrong Herb.
(You are BANNED) SUNMOD
John O'Sullivan
| #
Rocky, Eschenbach is more a comedian, not a scientist. A real scientist, Joseph Postma debunked his irrational steel greenhouse example years ago. See here:https://principia-scientific.com/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/
Reply
Rocky
| #
Do try to stay away from the ad hominem John. Willis provided a solution and all of the governing equations. Do you understand them? Postma doesn’t even understand the first law of thermodynamics. Let’s list the issues with his “debunking”.
First the temperature of the environment is irrelevant unless we want to do an experiment on Earth for comparison. As it is, it was clear that Willis’ problem was for a sphere emitting to 0K surroundings.
Both the internal and external radio of the shell are only marginally larger than the radius of the sphere to the extent that all of these radii can be considered to be equivalent with the caveat that the shell is not in contact with the sphere.
Equation 3a is wrong. It is neither the conservation of energy equation for the sphere or the COE equation for the shell. Willis’ equations for the COE for the sphere and shell are correct.
Are you able to attempt to defend Postma’s equations, or have you been duped by him like so many others?
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
You merely stating Postma is wrong, without offering a detailed explanation is not a rebuttal.
Reply
Rocky
| #
I think I might have entered my email with a typo. Sorry for the duplication.
Equation 3a in Postma’s solution is incorrect.
Look it up for yourself. The heat transferred per unit area per unit time from a blackbody sphere to a closely surrounding blackbody thin shell is
q = sigma ( Tsph^4 – Tsh^4 )
That is his error. Confirm it for yourself.
Rocky
| #
So in order to be at steady state the heat into the sphere from the source must be balanced by the heat out from the sphere to the shell:
Q_s = sigma A (Tsph^4 – Tsh^4)
Additionally, to be at steady state, the heat into the shell from the sphere must be balanced by the energy emitted by the shell out to space:
sigma A (Tsph^4 – Tsh^4) = sigma A Tsh^4
Solving these equations we find that:
Tsph = (2 Q_s / sigma / A)^(1/4)
Tsh = (Q_s / sigma / A)^(1/4)
Is that detailed enough for you John?
(You have been BANNED) SUNMOD
Gary Ashe
| #
Here Is Rocky posing as Joseph Postma as well as trolling here again John.
His willis line is exactly the same troll as his 2 plate troll.
”The two-plate problem shows you are wrong.”
So who’s side are you on? The atheist Kook, or the monad-worshipper Postma?
Why don’t you go email Kooks and tell him to engage with me? Oh right, he won’t because he can control his rage. “Nepal made a great point that it seemed impossible for Kooks to simply discuss a subject without resorting to insult and invective.”
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
https://www.cfact.org/2022/08/07/40822/ in the chat he is posing as postma.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
I love the way ‘Rocky’ promotes his belief in CO2 warming by using a Theoretical Computer Model as ‘proof’ of warming.
Rocky, I have proof the New York Yankees will win the next ten World Series playoffs, because I have a ‘computer model’ that ‘proves’ it!
Does Ozone heat or cool the Earth?
Do clouds of H2O heat or cool the Earth?
Does volcanic dust heat or cool the Earth?
Does CO2, with a greater Specific Heat than both Nitrogen and Oxygen, heat or cool the atmosphere?
Mark Twain once said, “It is easier to fool a man, than to convince a man he has been fooled…”
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
He is always with the same sophistry, using the mathematical construct of an idealized perfect black body that doesn’t exist anywhere and said physic’s.
A complete mis-direction as our planet is not a black body
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Rocky believes that, in convection, an object with less velocity (energy) can increase the velocity (energy) of another object (equal mass) with greater velocity (energy) because his simulator says so.
Reply
Moffin
| #
When a snooker ball is stationary and is hit by a fast moving snooker ball the stationary snooker ball will move. The angle of collision denotes resulting speed.
But, that ain’t thermodynamics.
Reply