Is Tony Heller About To Join The Slayers?
Tony has slowly been approaching the Slayer position on the fraud of the climate greenhouse effect.
He’s almost totally on board now, realizing what the adiabatic lapse rate means – that it destroys the climate greenhouse narrative.
See more here climateofsophistry.com
Header image: DeSmog
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.
olav ankjær
| #
Can’t quite agree with this statement.
Singer did not claim that there was no form of greenhouse effect, but that it was self-regulating.
Depending on latitude and altitude, CO2 will have a canceling or better described as negative feedback.
We know that the climate hysteria is dependent on some form of positive feedback (primarily increased water vapor) in order to be able to claim that there is or is an upcoming climate crisis due to an increased proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.
James McGinn
| #
H2O is completely incapable of positive feedback thermally. In all instances water’s feedback is negative.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
J Cuttance
| #
It’s hard to parse out evidence for any component of an atmosphere heating (or cooling) a planet’s surface beyond its contribution to surface pressure.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi J,
I would think that since water absorbs heat from the surface when it evaporates then carries that heat to the top of the troposphere, releasing it into space when condensing back into a liquid, we can be pretty sure its acting as coolant.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Right. Liquid water absorbs heat from anything hotter and gradually warms anything cooler. It’s feedback is only negative–when it is in the liquid phase. It provides thermal balance. Ice or snow, on the otherhand, because of it’s high albedo, does make the planet cooler, which is positive feedback.
As a scientist I see Tony Heller as an engineer and not a real scientist–just like PSI. Real scientists are focused on cause and effect and are obsessed with getting it right for theoretical purposes. That’s not Tony but that is also not PSI either. Both take a lot for granted, which is antithetical to scientific progress.
Both PSI and Tony are obsessed with countering the propaganda–educating the public–which I consider a foolish goal in that the public has zero desire to be educated.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Water, whether ice, snow, or liquid does not absorb visible light but scatters it through transmission, refraction, and a little reflection. Snow is white because it is emitting visible light. The small portion of light being directed back into space will have its energy decrease with distance making the loss of energy by albedo grossly over estimated.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Water, whether ice, snow, or liquid does not absorb visible light but scatters it through transmission, refraction, and a little reflection.
JMcG:
I don’t disagree. However there is more to the sun’s spectrum than visible light. Liquid water has no problem absorbing IR. I don’t know about UV.
Herb:
Snow is white because it is emitting visible light. The small portion of light being directed back into space will have its energy decrease with distance making the loss of energy by albedo grossly over estimated.
JMcG:
I don’t think it grossly overestimated. However, I don’t know the details well enough to have a firm conclusion.
In my opinion, it’s mostly important to be aware that since H2O molecules neutralize each others polarity (at increments of up to 25% per H bond) when they form hydrogen bonds with each other. This creates a looseness (and constant varability) of polar forces that is the mechanism of the high heat capacity of liquid H2O and this does not exist in ice since their is no looseness and therefore no mechanism of energy storage/conservation.
James McGinn / Genius
J Cuttance
| #
Indeed, as does atmospheric convection in general
James McGinn
| #
JCut:
In my opinion, your phrase, “Atmospheric convection.” is nothing but vague, rhetoric. Empirically this notion is bankrupt. You won’t even find anybody that is able to define it concisely enough that it can be tested.
Confused pretenders always hide their confusion behind sciencey sounding rhetoric. It is your responsibility to not let them get away with it.
Maybe you should consider the possibility that your model sucks. My model has no convection and does not need it to explain observed uplift in the context of storms, as does your cartoonish model. In my model uplift in storms is caused by vortices that are prevalent toward the top of the troposphere and are at one and the same time the explanation for how jet streams maintain their momentum — something your model completely fails to explain.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Indeed, and in fact water acts as a literal refrigerant below the tropopause:
The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:
A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it gives up its energy to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.
That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K km -1 ) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K km -1 ).
But it’s not just water… all polyatomics have the same effect. Water’s effect is especially pronounced because it undergoes phase change at prevalent Earthly temperatures (and latent heat capacity can carry a lot of energy), but the higher DOF (Degrees Of Freedom) of polyatomics (as compared to monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics) transports more energy for any polyatomic molecule.
That’s why neither CO2 nor H2O are used as a filler gas in dual-pane windows… if they were such terrific ‘heat trapping’ gases, they’d be used as such. They’re not. Low DOF (Degree of Freedom), low specific heat capacity monoatomics generally are. Analogize the Earth | Atmosphere | Space system as a dual-pane window (flip a dual-pane window horizontally… the bottom pane (and the heat source in the room behind that pane) would represent Earth, the filler gas would represent the atmosphere, the upper pane would represent space)… now inject water vapor or CO2 as the filler gas… you’ll find the energy transport from lower to upper pane is much higher than if a monoatomic was the filler gas.
It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse’ gases… remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection.
Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR.
Homonuclear diatomics (O2 , N2 ) have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision.
In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy to space, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.
The environmental lapse rate would necessitate that the surface also warm, given that the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA (Top of Atmosphere… that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation… it is different for different wavelengths, with the Effective TOA being the mean of all wavelength’s TOAs).
The surface would also have to warm because that ~76.2% of energy which is currently removed from the surface via convection and evaporation would have to be removed nearly solely via radiation (there would be some collisional perturbation of N2 and O2 , and thus some emission in the atmosphere)…. and a higher radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.
So one could say that in regards to water, we live inside the equivalent of the evaporator of a gigantic world-sized A/C unit, with water as the refrigerant, with other polyatomics acting as less efficient coolants, and with the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics playing the same role as noncondensable gases would play in an A/C system… a reduction in the efficiency at which energy is transported due to low molar heat capacity of those monoatomics or homonuclear diatomics and their inability to effectively radiatively emit.
The CAGW scam is an intelligence test… and the sorry state of education today causes most people to not have the critical thinking skills to pass that test.
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
it is transported (convected)
JMcG:
Convection plays no role in earth’s atmosphere.
Kkook:
. . . .and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere,
JMcG:
It is 100% impossible for water to become gaseous at such low temperatures. You are just confused.
Kkook:
owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser],
JMcG:
Meaningless. You are a confused nitwit.
Kkook:
That’s why neither CO2 nor H2O are used as a filler gas in dual-pane windows…
JMcG;
No, moron, the reason H2O can’t be used is because it is never gaseous at ambient temps.
Prove me wrong you evasive ass.
James McGinn / Genius
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Your denials of reality, Jimbo “The Dunce” McGinn, do not change reality one whit.
The only question remaining in your case is, “How many more decades will it be before you get tired of the world laughing at your clownish dullardry?” LOL
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Jimbo “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“My model has no convection and does not need it to explain observed uplift in the context of storms, as does your cartoonish model. In my model uplift in storms is caused by vortices that are prevalent toward the top of the troposphere”
I suppose actual greenhouses have “vortices that are prevalent toward the top of the greenhouse” which causes warm air to rise toward the top of the greenhouse, right?
I suppose multi-floor houses have “vortices that are prevalent toward the top floor” which causes warm air to rise to the top floor, right?
You are and you have been wrong on every single topic to date, you’ve become emotionally invested in your incorrectitude, and because you refuse to admit your mistakes, you are therefore incapable of rectifying your mistakes, so you continue buffoonishly stumbling from one wrong belief to another as the world points and laughs. LOL
How many more years will you put up with the waste of your life and the raucous laughter at your expense, Dunce? LOL
James McGinn
| #
Address the issue, you evasive POS.
LOL. You got nothing, you confused nitwit.
James McGinn / Genius
Water is the reason we have weather
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Water-is-the-reason-we-have-weather-e2chfkc/a-aalub77
Howdy
| #
I believe it is about time this infantile ranting was brought to a close. It does the site zero service and has continued for days.
Anyone heard of “Harmony through conflict?
Positive: Reasonable argument through logic, reason and measured words as well as peaceful demonstration and petition.
Negative: Focus on attack, distorted accusations, name calling, labeling in place of reason.
http://freeread.com/7454-2/
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
What is ‘infantile’ is rejecting every bit of known scientific advancement, inventing entirely new ‘fantasy fyziks’ that do not comport with reality, then attacking anyone proving that the ‘fantasy fyziks’ does not (indeed, could not) reflect reality… and all as some means of bolstering his own fragile psyche by proclaiming himself to be a ‘genius’, when in reality, even those educated to no more than grade-school level science can see through his blather.
The crackpot Ken Wheeler (aka Theoria Apophasis) did the same on a forum, until I read his book, translated his redefinitions of standard science back into their long-established terms, addressed his stealing concepts without attribution (and often verbatim) from Cyclon Theory, Dollardian Theory and a number of other odd hobby theories, addressed his stealing credit for concepts from others (the worst example was his claim that he’d discovered electroculture… first experimented with by Pierre Bertholon de Saint-Lazare in 1783) and cornered him with his own logic to prove that what he claimed was unphysical… just as I did with McGinn above with his claimed “vortices”… if convection doesn’t exist, then in a closed container such as a multi-floor house, there must exist these “vortices”… except we know they don’t exist in a house. He can’t address that, so he goes ad hominem.
He denies the Kinetic Molecular Theory… claiming that there’s no way we could possibly measure molecular kinetic energy. I even wrote out the mathematical equations to equate pressure to temperature to kinetic energy… he denied it all so he could continue shilling for his idiotic unscientific drivel as means of falsely painting himself a ‘genius’.
How the admins allow him to continue spewing his unscientific drivel on this site is beyond comprehension… he undermines their credibility and he lends a bad stench to the CAGW-skeptical side. He’s been booted from other forums, you know… he’s been at it for more than a decade.
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
What is ‘infantile’ is rejecting every bit of known scientific advancement,
JMcG:
I am advanced. You are convoluted, confused and inept. I reject superstitious notions like the belief that H2O magically rises as a result of buoyancy despite it being — indisputably — much heavier than drier air.
You are a confused nitwit who can’t formulate a coherent argument.
James McGinn / Genius
All of These Things That Make Us Human
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/All-of-These-Things-That-Make-Us-Human-e2cfu49
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
You, as all crackpots do, have flipped reality on its head… rather than the proper science of air convecting due to it being heated and thus less dense, or convecting because some of the air molecules have been replaced with water molecules that are lighter, you claim that air is ‘sucked up’ from the planet’s surface by your wholly-fantasized ‘vortices’ at the tropopause, and you did so in order to proclaim yourself a ‘genius’, when you’re the most laughable buffoon out there.
The Aeronautical Journal 1
Page 1 of 17. c Royal Aeronautical Society YYYY
doi: 10.1017/aer.2016.1
Steam balloon concept for lifting rockets to launch altitude
Finnish Meteorological Institute
Helsinki
Finland
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.03111.pdf
Note specifically Table 1… your odd hobby theory compels you to deny the reality that hot air balloons and water vapor balloons are an envelope of lesser-density and therefore they are more buoyant… in fact, you must also deny that vacuum balloons have lifting potential, because you deny the concept of buoyancy.
I suppose it’s those fantasy ‘vortices’ that’s pulling those hot air-filled, water vapor-filled or vacuum balloons upward, right, Dunce? LOL
You’re utterly unable to address this reality, instead, you’ll go ad hominem (again). It’s all you’ve got. LOL
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
You, as all crackpots do, have flipped reality on its head…
JMcG:
The reality i that none of you convoluted pretenders has an reproducible experimental evidence of your magical gaseous water. You convoluted pretenders can’t grasp the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O makes it completely impossible
Kkook:
rather than the proper science of air convecting due to it being heated and thus less dense,
JMcG:
It’s only “proper” to morons that can’t think straight and who are unable to read a simple phase diagram of H2O.
Kkook:
or convecting because some of the air molecules have been replaced with water molecules that are lighter,
JMcG:
This is one of the dumbest assertions ever. It may be even dumber than belief that CO2 causes warming. Or the moronic belief that energy only moves from hot to cold.
Kkook:
you claim that air is ‘sucked up’ from the planet’s surface
JMcG:
Rarely do vortices connect with the ground to be tornadoes. Most of the time they stay fairly high and are the cause of uplift and low pressure, both of which are witnessed in storms.
Vortices originate in or near the jet stream and the jet stream is the source of the low pressure energy that allows vortices to exist. Over their lifespan vortices exhaust into the jet streams, thus explaining something that the current paradigm fails to explain, how the jet streams maintain their momentum.
Kkook:
by your wholly-fantasized ‘vortices’ at the tropopause,
JMcG:
Vortices are plainly observable, you f8cking m0ron.
Kkook:
and you did so in order to proclaim yourself a ‘genius’, when you’re the most laughable buffoon out there.
JMcGL
LOL. You got nothing you vague nitwit.
The Aeronautical Journal 1
Page 1 of 17. c Royal Aeronautical Society YYYY
doi: 10.1017/aer.2016.1
Steam balloon concept for lifting rockets to launch altitude
JMcG:
This failed, you fccking idiot
Kkook:
Note specifically Table 1… your odd hobby theory compels you to deny the reality that hot air balloons and water vapor balloons are an envelope of lesser-density and therefore they are more buoyant…
JMcG:
This is common knowledge, you vague nitwit.
You got nothing, you convoluted moron.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
One hallmark of a crackpot is the denial of mathematically precise, empirically-derived science.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Dewpoint-RH.svg/800px-Dewpoint-RH.svg.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Dewpoint.jpg
You deny the Saturation Fraction of Water Vapor chart, hence you must deny Dew Point, nucleation and all of the ideal gas laws, the Beer-Lambert Law (used by optical hygrometers), as well as everything learned to date about hygrometry and psychrometry (first studied during the Shang Dynasty in China and accurately measured since 1783, then very accurately measured since 1887), in addition to your previous denial of the Kinetic Molecular Theory, which I mathematically laid out for you:
https://principia-scientific.com/new-paper-eviscerates-un-ipccs-climate-term-radiative-forcing/#comment-98045
https://principia-scientific.com/new-paper-eviscerates-un-ipccs-climate-term-radiative-forcing/#comment-98046
You’ve still not addressed the question posed to you in the immediately-above link, Dunce… because you can’t. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You’re a fraud, a self-congratulating charlatan that no one takes seriously. LOL
In fact, we can definitively disprove your blather right here and now…
Water has different absorption spectra depending upon its phase.
In gaseous phase, it absorbs into rotational mode quantum states in the microwave and far-infrared range; it absorbs into the vibrational mode quantum states in the mid-infrared and near-infrared range; and into the electronic mode quantum states in the vacuum ultraviolet range.
In liquid phase, water has no rotational spectrum… its microwave absorption cross-section is different than that of gaseous water.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif
“Absorption spectrum (attenuation coefficient vs. wavelength) of liquid water (red), atmospheric water vapor (green) and ice (blue line) between 667 nm and 200 μm.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
Now deny even more scientific reality and spout even more gibbering ad hominems, Dunce… you know you want to. Your delusional take on reality compels you to melt down now that you’ve had your idiotic unscientific blather defenestrated yet again. LOL
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
One hallmark of a crackpot is the denial of mathematically precise, empirically-derived science.
JMcG:
LOL. And you got nothing!!!
Kkook:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Dewpoint-RH.svg/800px-Dewpoint-RH.svg.png
JMcG:
I haven’t read your link. I know what dew point is and I know how common it is for dull-witted morons to misinterpret it. I am sure you have done just that. Try defining it in your own words.
Kkook:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Dewpoint.jpg
JMcG:
Don’t put words in my mouth, you worthless troll. I have no dispute with the concept of dew point. It’s useful concept if you are trying to predict when it will rain. But the concept DOES NOT CONFIRM YOUR MORONIC BELIEF THAT H2O MAGICALLY DEFIES ITS KNOW BOILING TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE.
KKook:
You deny the Saturation Fraction of Water Vapor chart,
JMcG:
I don’t deny this, you confused nitwit.
Kkook:
hence you must deny Dew Point, nucleation
JMcG:
I feel no obligation to confirm the existence of what exists only in your imagination. Nobody in the history of mankind has ever presented any evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. Since water is never gaseous nucleation theory is nonsense. (Prove me wrong, you convoluted moron.)
Kkook:
and all of the ideal gas laws, the Beer-Lambert Law (used by optical hygrometers), as well as everything learned to date about hygrometry and psychrometry (first studied during the Shang Dynasty in China and accurately measured since 1783, then very accurately measured since 1887),
JMcG:
I have no dispute with any of this. You are just a confused nitwit.
Kkook:
in addition to your previous denial of the Kinetic Molecular Theory, which I mathematically laid out for you:
JMcG:
I have no dispute with kinetic theory. You laid out nothing, you convoluted pretender.
Kkook:
https://principia-scientific.com/new-paper-eviscerates-un-ipccs-climate-term-radiative-forcing/#comment-98045
Kkooks:
https://principia-scientific.com/new-paper-eviscerates-un-ipccs-climate-term-radiative-forcing/#comment-98046
You’ve still not addressed the question posed to you in the immediately-above link, Dunce…
because you can’t. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You’re a fraud, a self-congratulating charlatan that no one takes seriously. LOL
In fact, we can definitively disprove your blather right here and now…
JMcG:
Good luck with that. LOL.
Kkoop:
Water has different absorption spectra depending upon its phase.
JMcG:
Relevance?
Kkook:
In gaseous phase, it absorbs into rotational mode quantum states in the microwave and far-infrared range; it absorbs into the vibrational mode quantum states in the mid-infrared and near-infrared range; and into the electronic mode quantum states in the vacuum ultraviolet range.
JMcG:
Yeah, so? What is your point?
Kkook:
In liquid phase, water has no rotational spectrum… its microwave absorption cross-section is different than that of gaseous water.
JMcG:
Can you even remember the last time you had a coherent and relevant point? I can”t.
Kkook:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif
“Absorption spectrum (attenuation coefficient vs. wavelength) of liquid water (red), atmospheric water vapor (green) and ice (blue line) between 667 nm and 200 μm.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
JMcG:
Cut and paste is not a scientific method. Do you ever have a f;cking point?
Kkook:
Now deny even more scientific reality and spout even more gibbering ad hominems, Dunce… you know you want to. Your delusional take on reality compels you to melt down now that you’ve had your idiotic unscientific blather defenestrated yet again. LOL
JMcG:
If you lack the ability to scrutinize your own thinking you will never be able to make progress.
You will always be just a worthless troll.
You got nothing, you convoluted nitwit.
James McGinn / Genius
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/October-2023-e2c4bfu/a-aaklneo
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Woot! Look at dumb ol’ Jimbo “The Dunce” McGinn spinning like a top. LOL
The point, you brain-dead half-wit, is that there are three empirically-measured absorption spectrums for water in that graph I provided… if water was only forming droplets and wasn’t gaseous in the atmosphere, there’d only be two.
Oh… that’s empirical, repeatable and oft-corroborated data that proves every single bit of your blather wrong, isn’t it? LOL
That’s why you’re on a frothing rampage, Dunce. LOL
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
The point, you brain-dead half-wit, is that there are three empirically-measured absorption spectrums for water in that graph I provided… if water was only forming droplets and wasn’t gaseous in the atmosphere, there’d only be two.
JMcG:
Uh, er . . . uh? So, let me get this straight. In your troll opinion absorption spectrums correspond to phases. Really? Did you just make this up?
Kkook:
Oh… that’s empirical, repeatable and oft-corroborated data that proves every single bit of your blather
wrong, isn’t it? LOL
JMcG:
LOL. Does it. How so?
Answer the question, you evasive ass.
James McGinn / Genius
Here is my latest podcast:
Paradigms Often Involve Deliberate Stupidity
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/nbOhhg0J7Fb
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Your inability to come to grips with the fact that liquid water has quenched rotational mode quantum states (and that affects is absorption spectrum) sounds like it drives quite a few of your miscomprehensions, Jim.
Of course, that doesn’t explain your handwavium in dismissing evidence which disproves your odd hobby theory… that can only be explained by a personality defect in which you can never accept that you are wrong (and hence you never learn). That you beclown yourself in attempting to ‘prove’ yourself ‘not wrong’ can only be marked up to markedly low intellect. LOL
Howdy
| #
Not watched Tony Heller in ages. Entertaining videos.
Allan Shelton
| #
Tony Heller’s website posts facts supported by copious evidence.
I visit his site nearly every day and his articles never let me down.
His mild sarcasm is often misinterpreted by non-critical thinkers.
Be sure to read his bio.. It is very impressive.
Website; realclimatescience.com
John O'Sullivan
| #
Allan, well said! Well worth everyone visiting Heller’s website if they have a genuine interest in solid historical records and not just junk science and mainstream media hyberbole
MattH
| #
One of Tony Heller’s gifts is to be able to do videos which I have never had to replay a section to get clarity. He speaks with absolute clarity.
A liked his satirical presentation on ‘proof of life on Mars’, which included newspaper articles of scientists claiming the Martians were advanced and their existence proven. Circa 1920s-30s.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
You seem to enjoy satire. The problem with Satire is too many people believe it is the truth.
Have a good day
Jerry Krause
| #
And too many people don’t believe that actually measured data is the Truth. Have you looked at the SURFRAD link which I
drew to your attention?
Have a good day
John V
| #
I’ve been following Tony for some years now, like others have said, historical facts undercutting the fake data the typical bad actors lay out.
Some people scoff at him, but he has hard data to back his presentations, they typically just try to undermine his character, never his claims.
Herb Rose
| #
Adiabatic heating is not due to molecules gaining energy. In an atmosphere energy is transferred by collisions. How much energy is transferred depends not only on the energy of the molecules but also the number of collisions.
The reason the gas molecules are denser at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is because they have less kinetic energy than the higher gas molecules. With less density comes more frequent collisions and more transfer of energy.
If you take the temperature of the atmosphere at an altitude you are getting the kinetic energy of a constant volume of gas. If you divide the temperature at an altitude by the density at that altitude you will get the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules. Instead of the ridiculous zig-zag and pauses you see in a graph of the temperature in the atmosphere you have the kinetic energy rising in a straight line in the troposphere (where water moderates the energy) and an exponential increase in the higher altitudes. The sun is heating both the Earth (visible light) and the atmosphere (UV) and there is no “back radiation” but the normal radiation loss of heat by the hotter molecules higher in the atmosphere. It is in the thermosphere where you have expansion and contraction of gasses due to the change of the energy of molecules..
James McGinn
| #
You are on the right track, Herb, but I think you are stuck. You’ve gotten a lot right but now your progress has halted. You are still confused about water.
It’s not good enough to realize water has a high heat capacity if you don’t understand the mechanics that dictate the how and why. And you don’t .
James McGinn / Genius
Kevin Doyle
| #
After reading numerous comments here, I must conclude LOL@Klimate, etc. is correct in what he is saying.
Jim McGinn is a bit ego-centric; and in love with his own Theories; and not firmly grounded in reality. Perhaps, he should get one of those business cards the Coyote in the ‘Bugs Bunny’ Coyote vs. Road-Runner cartoons had: ‘Wile E. Coyote – Genius’.
Last time I checked, it takes the same amount of energy to raise an ice cube from 26-27-28 F. Yet, it takes far more energy to raise it from 32 F (frozen) to 32 F (liquid).
Also, it requires removing lots of energy from gaseous H20 gas to condense it back into water. Hence, nuclear power plants use ‘cold water’ to remove the energy from the hot gas called steam.
But, what do I know?
I simply design nuclear powered submarines…
James McGinn
| #
Hmm. Actually I’m just way ahead of you vague nitwits. Real science involves details. All of you are part of a convoluted, dimwitted paradigm that has left you all confused.
KD:
Last time I checked, it takes the same amount of energy to raise an ice cube from 26-27-28 F.
JMcG:
LOL. You know that H2O has a high heat capacity. So what? But you couldn’t describe the underlying physics as to why it has a high heat capacity. You are an amateur.
KD:
Yet, it takes far more energy to raise it from 32 F (frozen) to 32 F (liquid).
This is a dimwitted comment. It would be impossible to test this assertion since it would be impossible to knowingly get a block of ice to hover at 32 F.
KD:
Also, it requires removing lots of energy from gaseous H20 gas to condense it back into water.
JMcG:
Yikes. You are worse than I thought. Gaseous H2O converts back to water and/or water vapor, both of which are liquid forms of H2O, as soon as it is cooled by the atmosphere.
KD:
Hence, nuclear power plants use ‘cold water’ to remove the energy from the hot gas called steam.
JMcG:
The energy is removes when it goes through the turbine and associated reduction in pressure.
On a sub the steam presents complications. But this is because it can’t be venting steam. You are confused. Nuclear power plants don’t need to do this.
KD:
But, what do I know?
I simply design nuclear powered submarines…
JMcG:
I’m an atmospheric physicist. The atmosphere is many times more complex than any man made entity, including a nuclear sub.
Also, you most probably are a engineer and not a real scientist. I am a real scientist.
I consider myself the world’s number one expert on the physics of water. You surely have no idea what any of this means.
James McGinn / Genius
Narrow Range of Situational Factors Underlie storms
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Narrow-Range-of-Situational-Factors-Underlie-Emergence-of-Structural-Properties-in-the-Atmosphere-e2d4jr3/a-aanql2t
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Jimbo “The Dunce” McGinn, the self-professed “tornado genius” who only ever saw a small tornado once from a distance when he was a kid (which I proved via a tornado tracker), is talking to a guy who designed nuke plants and a guy who not only was trained in nuclear physics but ran nuke plants (on subs)… and the delusional little goober deigns to tell us how it all works.
Go take your psychotropic medication and take a nap, Dunce. You’re far out of your league. LOL
Kevin Doyle
| #
Jim,
You honestly make me laugh.
This is funny stuff!
You suggest nuclear power plants only need to “vent steam”, but “submarines cannot do this”.
Apparently, you have no understanding all U.S. Navy aircraft carriers utilize nuclear power plants. None of them “vent steam” to the atmosphere. We all use cold sea water to condense the steam H2O back into a liquid form. Please, look up definition of ‘heat exchanger’?
Your understanding of basic heat transfer, convection and conduction, is child-like at best.
Your understanding of radiation, and radiational heat transfer is simply non-existent.
Radiation is no different than the conduction, nor convection, in that energy always flows from hot to cold. The principal difference with radiation is it is a function of temperature to exponential 4th power, and also distance from the source of energy/heat/radiation. (Hint, if you try to double the temperature of a block of granite, it requires 16 times more energy than its current state.)
Not sure if you have some different ‘Theory’?
I am certain all PSI readers look forward to your next brilliant observation!
Since you have a ‘Bugs Bunny’ business card, then we should all certainly take you seriously…
James McGinn
| #
KD:
None of them “vent steam” to the atmosphere.
JMcG:
Exactly as I stated.
KD:
Your understanding of basic heat transfer, convection and conduction, is child-like at best.
JMcG:
Uh, how would you know. I’ve been discussing the atmosphere. You brought subs into this.
KD:
Your understanding of radiation, and radiational heat transfer is simply non-existent.
JMcG:
You are an engineer. I am a scientists.
KD:
Radiation is no different than the conduction, nor convection, in that energy always flows from hot to cold.
JMcG:
You are confused. Energy travels from higher density to lower density. Net exchange of energy is from hotter objects to colder objects. You are a child in this conversation.
KD:
The principal difference with radiation is it is a function of temperature to exponential 4th power, and also distance from the source of energy/heat/radiation. (Hint, if you try to double the temperature of a block of granite, it requires 16 times more energy than its current state.)
JMcG:
Yep, you are an engineer. When your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. It’s the details surrounding water that is the source of most of your confusion.
Address the fact that you morons believe H2O can become gaseous at ambient temperature, you evasive POS.
KD:
Not sure if you have some different ‘Theory’?
JMcG:
Tell us your theory on why H2O has such a high heat capacity. Go ahead. Make my day.
KD:
I am certain all PSI readers look forward to your next brilliant observation!
You got nothing, you vague nitwit.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Jimbo “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“You are confused. Energy travels from higher density to lower density.”
And a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object.
https://i.imgur.com/wb9KwS0.png
You’re so confused that you don’t even have the faintest clue what you’re arguing about. And you’re just hubristic enough to argue with those who’ve been trained in these sort of things for practical application. It is to laugh… LOL
sunsettommy
| #
This thread has gone long enough will have to stop because of the growing personal attacks and the endless arguments that have grown tedious.
SUNMOD- Administrator.