The Thermometer Lies
Image: Kiowa County Press
When an object moves it creates a disturbance in the electric and magnet fields surrounding it. The wavelength of this disturbance is determined by the velocity of the object, the greater the velocity of the object the shorter its wavelength and the greater its energy. This is how an object loses energy by radiation.
What energy an object absorbs from radiation is determined by the materials it is made from, with different materials absorbing different wavelengths.
If the thermometer were able to measure all the wavelengths emitted by a moving object it could determine its velocity and energy, but because of the materials it is constructed from, it is limited in the wavelengths it is able to absorb which severely limits its range for measuring radiated energy. Instead of measure the energy radiated from a moving object a thermometer measures the momentum of the objects striking it or convection.
Momentum is the velocity of an object times its mass, so there are two variables that are involved in the temperature being measured by the thermometer. In a liquid when a set portion of the thermometer is submerged the mass of the molecules and the number of molecules transferring energy remains fairly constant so the thermometer is able to compare the energy (velocity squared) of the molecules.
These conditions are not true in an unconfined gas, like the atmosphere, where as energy is added the gas expands and fewer molecules strike the thermometer. As the kinetic energy of the molecules change both variables, mass and energy, change and the thermometer is not able to distinguish if the resulting change of temperature is due to changing mass (number of molecules) or the energy of the molecules.
This problem also applies to a barometer, which has a similar construction to a thermometer. The barometer is said to measure the mass of the atmosphere per unit area but what it is actually measuring is the momentum (both mass and velocity/energy) of the molecules striking it. This failing is shown by the fact that warm masses of air have a higher barometric pressure than a cool mass of air.
If the air is warmer, it is less dense, which means there are fewer molecules per unit area and with no change in the mass of the molecules the barometer should register a lower barometric pressure in a warm air mass instead of a higher pressure.
Conversely a cool mass of air is denser and should register a greater mass per unit of area. The barometer, like he thermometer, is recording the momentum of the gas molecules. Both a thermometer and a barometer record lower readings with increasing altitude in the troposphere but are these reading a result of fewer molecules striking the instruments or the molecules having less energy? Hotter less dense air will rise, but the density of the atmosphere is greatest at the Earth’s surface indicating that the air molecules there have less kinetic energy (cooler).
In order to determine the velocity/energy of the gas molecules in the atmosphere the universal gas law (MV=nRt) must be used.The atmosphere is a result of the kinetic energy of the nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and CO2 molecules that it is composed of. Without kinetic energy these chemicals would be a layer of liquid or solids on the Earth’s surface. It is kinetic energy that converts these compounds into gases and causes them to expand against gravity creating the atmosphere.
Any increase in kinetic energy will result in an increase in volume of the atmosphere not an increase in pressure, as there is no container resisting expansion. Since the temperature is well above the boiling point of these compounds an increase in kinetic energy will not result in a significant change in the number of molecules nor will the gas constant (R) change. It is the volume of the gas that changes.
The change in the kinetic energy (t) of the molecules will result in a change of density of these gases so by using the inverse of density (the volume of a constant number of molecules) we can determine the kinetic energy of the molecules at different altitudes. This shows that the kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases steadily in the troposphere (exponentially at higher altitudes) even though both the barometer and thermometer register lower values.
It is a decrease in mass (number of molecules) that causes the decrease in temperature/barometric pressure even as the energy of the molecules increase.
This explains the contradiction of the adiabatic heating of the molecules in the lower altitudes resulting from gravity increasing the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. The molecules are not gaining energy from gravity they are losing energy to gravity. Any decrease in kinetic energy will cause contraction while an increase will cause expansion. You cannot have a contraction cause an expansion or a loss of energy cause an increase in energy.
The higher temperature at lower altitudes is a result of an increase in the momentum being transferred to the thermometer by an increase in the number of molecules striking it. If the air is denser it is cooler and has less kinetic energy. The greater kinetic energy of gas molecules at higher altitudes shows that it is the sun, not the surface of the Earth, which is heating the atmosphere. Even though the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere do not absorb visible light, they do absorb x-rays and ultraviolet light emitted by the sun and this is converted into kinetic energy.
People will put on sun screen to block the five percent of ultraviolet light that is not absorbed by the atmosphere but believe that the ninety five percent absorbed does not add energy to the atmosphere. It is the absorption of uv energy by oxygen molecules (450,000 joules/mole) that creates the ozone layer in the stratosphere and the nitrous oxide layer in the atmosphere. The atmosphere in turn adds heat to the Earth’s surface.
The conservation of momentum and equalization of energy (velocity squared) means that a gas molecule with high velocity will transfer energy to a more massive object on the Earth’s surface even if that object has greater kinetic energy (higher temperature). During a solar minimum, when the sun produces less x-ray and ultraviolet light, the Earth will cool despite the fact that the amount of visible light it absorbs does not change.
There is nothing scientific about the greenhouse gas theory and it is completely unsupported by evidence or reason. The entire man made climate change movement is another example of people utilizing the successful strategy of exploiting the stupidity of others to steal their money.
The governments and institutions are just thieves robbing taxpayers and the so called scientists supporting them are just paid pawns exploiting the scam for their own benefit.
At least bank robbers have some courage and honesty about their crimes while the climate fraudsters are disguising themselves as honorable people working for the benefit of those they are robbing.
Those committing this fraud should all should be forced to return the stolen money and jailed.
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.
Allan Shelton
| #
Thanks for that.
And I agree with your thoughts about crimes.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The temperature the thermometer registers is defined as the mean kinetic energy of the medium being measured,
James:
I think you are wrong here Herb. A thermometer doesn’t measure the amount of kinetic energy or the mean amount of kinetic energy. It doesn’t measure quantity it measures flow. So, if we were to analogize to water we would say that a thermometer measures the rate of flow of a stream exiting a lake. The units would be volume/time. Could we use the rate of flow to infer quantity? Yes, but we’d have to know the capacity of the lake. Likewise if we know the capacity of the gas or liquid then we could infer quantity of energy, etc. For example, liquid water has a much higher heat capacity than gases. But liquid water will have much more energy contained in it than a gas of the same temperature.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
“when an object moves it creates a disturbance in the electric and magnet fields around it” How about neutrinos? Are neutrinos an object? Thermometers are man made objects and cannot lie…only give accurate…. or incorrect readings. “These conditions are not true for an unconfined gas, like the atmosphere.” If the atmosphere was unconfined, it would dissipate into space….the earth itself confines the atmosphere on one side and gravity holds back the movement into space except for H2 molecule which is light enough to escape. “the greater the velocity of an object the shorter its wavelength” Red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, but both move at the speed of light. It would be good if this was the answer to CO2 is causing the climate to warm…but this is not the arrow into the heart of the CO2 compound molecule…..regardless of what the thermometer reads.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi T.C.,
Neutrinos are imaginary objects created to explain why E=mc^2 did not give the right answer for the energy released when radioactive elements decayed.
If a thermometer is not giving the value you believe it to be, then it is untrue, not the fault of the instrument but the observer’s interpretation. People will use factually correct data to deceive people into believing something that is untrue because of their interpretation of the data.
The atmosphere is unconfined because it is free to expand if a force (kinetic energy) is greater than the force holding it (gravity). Since gravity is measured from the center of the Earth it does not significantly change through the atmosphere and the atmosphere expands and contracts with changes in energy unlike a gas in a container (confined).
Objects are not waves but produce waves as radiated energy. Are you disagreeing with Planck’s law that the energy of a wave is a function of its frequency (inverse of wavelength)? I believe he came to that conclusion through experimentation. I agree with Planck that uv will deliver more energy to an object in a shorter time than radio waves but I also disagree with it and say that the energy of a wave is a function of its amplitude while the energy an objects absorbs is a function of the frequencies it absorbs
Herb.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Neutrinos were first detected after WW2 by an experiment…a huge pool of water was erected next to a nuclear reactor and the large stream of neutrinos produced the effect that the detection apparatus was designed to detect. You said “the greater the velocity of an object the shorter its wavelength”. That is not true according to Einstein…do you disagree with him? Are you saying that the atmosphere does have some confinement rather than none or being entirely unconfined? E=mc^2 is for mass at rest …..there is another addition to the equation for objects in motion….like neutrinos. And, up there at the heights of the atmosphere….are you ignoring cosmic rays and and gamma rays? Now, that is high energy stuff. Neutrinos are so common that the average aged person will have one neutrino during their life to hit a nucleus of an atom in their body…..all the other 10^105 no. will pass right through without a scratch.
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Herb said; “Neutrinos are imaginary objects created to explain why E=mc^2 did not give the right answer for the energy released when radioactive elements decayed.”
Neutrinos are real 2.14 × 10−37 kg sum of 3 flavours. Not imaginary.
Therefore you are wrong.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
I stand corrected, sorry. You are stating others said Neutrinos are imaginary.
However, whoever said that Neutrinos were imaginary. Were wrong.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Climate Heretic,
The neutrino as first proposed had no mass and no charge but strictly an energy emission. This doesn’t qualify it as a particle just as gamma radiation is not a particle.
The experiment that “discovered” it was garbage. It relied on one of these neutrinos striking the nucleus of a chlorine atom and converting it into a radioactive argon atom. In order to make sure the effect was from neutrinos emitted from the sun it was buried deep in the earth. The interior of the Earth is radioactive so this would not isolate it from other radiation. It is impossible to remove radioactive isotopes and impurities from the materials the experiment was constructed from or the air and people running the experiment so it could never be isolated from gamma radiation where only neutrinos could interact with the chlorine atoms. The experiment produced 10 radioactive argon atoms a month and ten non radioactive argon atoms. Because there was no explanation for the non radioactive argon this data was ignored. The expected results was 30 radioactive atoms so they created three types of neutrinos that could change but only one type was detectable. Since the neutrino travelled at the speed of light (which radiation without mass must do) there was no time and there could be no change. To fix this they gave the neutrino mass and made it an object which would change the expected number of neutrinos.
The neutrino is a constantly changing fudge factor created because to prevent the evidence that E=mc^2 was wrong. One of the three physicist who published the formula before Einstein considered the failure of the formula to match the reality of energy released by decomposing atoms as falsification of the theory.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Not my definition, but that of the experts. A thermometer will absorb energy from the momentum of the molecules striking it until the energy it loses by radiation or convection is equal to that absorbed. They say that it is the mean kinetic energy of the molecules, not me. Same goes for the barometer. It is not measuring the mass of atmosphere like they claim.
Water at the same or lower temperature of a gas can still gain energy from the gas because of the gas molecules’ greater velocity. When the energy of the gas molecules falls below that of the liquid water droplets the water will transfer energy to the gas.That is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Not my definition, but that of the experts.
James:
Experts? I am an expert. Thermometers don’t measure energy. They measure heat. Heat results when energy changes its position. It is a flow. It is the rate by which energy is changing position.
Of course, things with greater energy–when all other factors are the same–do produce greater flow. We say they are “hotter.” And so we can generally infer that something that is “hotter” has greater energy than something that is “cooler, all other factors being the same. Likewise when a stream coming from a lake is running faster we can infer that the lake is at greater capacity. But measuring the flow coming out of a lake is not a direct way to measure the amount of water in the lake. Likewise measuring heat with a thermometer is not a direct way to measure energy. Thermometers measure heat, not energy.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The experts I am referring to are Einstein, Feynman, wikipedia, and others, not you. I agree with you and have always said that the temperature is not an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas. In water, which is used to calibrate thermometers, it doesn’t record 86% of the energy needed to convert 0C ice to 100C steam. It is not even consistent in the size of a calorie (the energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1C).
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The experts I am referring to are Einstein, Feynman, wikipedia, and others, not you. I agree with you and have always said that the temperature is not an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas.
James:
Okay, but I think you have the wrong culprit. The thermometer is not lying to us. We are all confused about water.
It is generally understood that the H2O molecule is a polar molecule. It is also generally understood that water is a solvent (some refer to it as “the” universal solvent). Many people will tell us both of these things. But not many people realize that to understand the complexities of water in its liquid phase we have to understand that water is a polar molecule that resolves (neutralizes) its own polarity. Only when you understand this can you start to see the confusion from the inside out.
James McGinn
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
“Likewise when a stream coming from a lake is running faster we can infer that the lake is at greater capacity.” No, the rate that water flows from a lake depends on the head…or the elevation of the water in the lake.. A huge shallow lake will have a stream flow away at a low rate compared a to a smaller lake that is deep ….has a higher elevation water level. Furthermore, the flow rate out of a lake can used to directly measure the amount of water in the lake if the dimensions of the lake are known.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
In a changing universe, one simple question …
Does the flow of energy ever stop?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
No. Energy is motion/change. When it encounters matter (inertia) it slows but never stops.Even at absolute zero when an object has no motion and does not radiate energy it still has internal energy/motion holding it together and preventing the electric force of matter from converting it back to neutrons which is the base state of matter without energy.
Herb
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
Don’t know if you saw my reply to your comments on shedding but I posted one that has now apparently been removed along with the article. I guess it is somewhere in the PSI system. Since I am now here in the the midst of the energy discussion (of which I obviously know very little about) my question is: Is it not true that all living organisms depend on energy and coded information? PSI should I think retain comments for reference with agree button etc.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Herb, about 1/2 of those neutrinos that go through your body every second come from our sun….the rest come from space and the nuclear reactors on earth…what happens when the star orbiting the black hole at the center of the Milky Way nears the black hole?….the black hole absorbs a huge gulp of neutrinos, no?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi T.C.,
E=mc^2, neutrinos, black holes are all a result of Einstein’s contention that there is a particle mature (photon) of light and that the speed of light is constant. This is the basis of our disagreements.I believe you don’t need to create a particle to explain the photoelectric effect. Some electrons in crystals and metals are disassociated from their parent atoms and exist as ions, held in place by ionic bonds. There is no need for light to provide all the energy necessary to separate an electron from an atom, just enough to distort the bond and release it. This is the same effect that occurs in the piezo electric effect but instead of mechanical distortion it is done by a change in the electric and magnetic field around the material. The movement of the electron causes a disturbance or wave in the electric and magnetic fields and the speed of that wave (light) depends on the strength of those fields, varying as they vary.
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
What? Einstein never ever said the speed of light was constant…he said light in a vacuum travels at the max speed. Everyone knows light slows down in water..glass..etc. Despite your claims….individual photons of light are used in sophisticated versions of the double slit experiment. These experiments result in if you know the path of a photon, it will not result in a wave pattern but rather a double slit pattern…if you do not know the path of a photon, it will result in a wave interference pattern. Explain that. EFT…Electromagnetic Field Theory says everything is a field….String Theory says everything is a string. There is lots of evidence of blackholes despite your Herbphysics denying it.
T. C. Clark
| #
No object can reach absolute zero….a fraction of one degree K has been reached but according to quantum mechanics, there cannot be absolute zero….or a true vacuum (space containing absolutely nothing). Einstein said no particle with mass can attain the speed of light. Herbphysics cannot explain the Delayed Choice Quantum Erasure experiment.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TomO, Herb, and hopefully PSI Readers,
TomO: “Does the flow of energy ever stop?” When you asked this question I believe your unstated focus was only upon ‘light’ (radiation) energy. Energy is Energy and there are many forms of energy: potential energy (chemical and nuclear energy; gravitational energy because of position on the Earth and in the Universe, etc.). Kinetic energy: the energy due to a body’s motion: Wind energy, tidal energy. heat energy.
“Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’, Louis Elzevir, as translated by Crew and de Salvio)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Other Commenters,
I had not read some your comments when I wrote my comment. I had only read TomO’s comment and Herb’s reply to it. So I repeated some of your comments without any acknowledgement.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Michael Clarke and I have questioned what is the source of the light which allows us see the chaos of far space via the Hubble Telescope which existed billions of years ago.
And I had quoted Genesis 1:3,4 NIV: “And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. “God saw that the light was good, and he separated light from the darkness.” “
By stating that ‘he separated light from the darkness’ I have concluded that we are being told that light has a finite speed. Next, relative to TomO’s question I have concluded that maybe Einstein was correct when he considered that maybe GRAVITY BENDS LIGHT which keeps on flowing if it is not ‘absorbed’ by matter.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully other PSI Readers,
Have you ever made a gas thermometer and calibrated it with ice water and boiling water? Some of my general chemistry laboratory students have. You should try it. All you need is some heavy wall glass capillary tubing, a triangular file to scratch the tubing to length, use a gas torch (bunsen burner) to seal off end of the tubing, heat the tubing in the flame while holding the open end in your fingers, dip the open end in a pool of mercury and wait as the tubing cools and ‘draws’ about a 3-4mm plug of mercury up into the tube. (Be careful here because hot glass looks the same as cold glass) And you have a gas thermometer. You then calibrate this air thermometer by placing the entire column of gas into boiling water, mark the bottom of the mercury plug. Then do the same with the ice water. Then plot these two distances from the closed end of the tube versus the temperature of ice water (0C) and boiling water (100C). Draw a line through the two points to zero distance. And the temperature is approximately absolute zero.
Yes, it is a somewhat crude experiment but it certainly creates a temperature scale which has no negative temperatures.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
Another disgraceful article from P-S by Herb Rose, a truly zany Looney Tunes crackpot scientist. I normally ignore them, but this time I made an exception. Let me put my boots on.
[[The temperature the thermometer registers is defined as the mean kinetic energy of the medium being measured, but this is not always true. What the thermometer measures is the momentum of the molecules striking it.]]
A thermometer doesn’t measure the momentum of anything. Momentum is m * v. It measures kinetic energy, which is m * v^2, apples and oranges, but only indirectly.
Actually a thermometer measures heat transfer by establishing thermal equilibrium between its mercury content and the fluid it is immersed in. Mercury in tiny capillaries expands linearly with temperature, permitting a scale to be printed on the outside. This is called calorimetry. The real definition of heat is far more subtle than Rose’s 5th grader definition. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
“Though not immediately by the definition, but in special kinds of process, quantity of energy transferred as heat can be measured by its effect on the states of interacting bodies. For example, respectively in special circumstances, heat transfer can be measured by the amount of ice melted, or by change in temperature of a body in the surroundings of the system. Such methods are called calorimetry. ”
[[When an object moves it creates a disturbance in the electric and magnet fields surrounding it. The wavelength of this disturbance is determined by the velocity of the object, the greater the velocity of the object the shorter its wavelength and the greater its energy. This is how an object loses energy by radiation.]]
Radiation absorption has nothing to do with it. Only charged particles do that It’s called Liénard–Wiechert potential. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential
[[What energy an object absorbs from radiation is determined by the materials it is made from, with different materials absorbing different wavelengths.]]
How lame can you get? All black bodies absorb and emit all wavelengths. Only polar gas molecules absorb and emit in certain wavelength bands. That’s the basis of Earth climate science. I guess Rose wasn’t in class the day they taught that in 5th grade.
I wonder if Rose can even do calculus, or even trigonometry. It doesn’t seem likely. Yet he portrays himself as the next Einstein. Why does P-S disgrace itself by featuring his crackpot articles? The IPCC octopus has long been claiming that P-S is a pseudoscience rag, and it’s playing into their hands despite being right on the CO2 global warming issue. Is P-S falling into the trap of printing every crackpot’s zany Looney Tunes theories just because he says the greenhouse warming theory is wrong?
The IPCC has hijacked Big Science, leaving real science to a motley crew of independents, who ironically are the only people doing real research into the causes of Earth’s climate, CO2 not being one of them. It’s hard enough to be right in the IPCC’s world, but let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-science-mean-in-the-following-question-Why-do-people-deny-the-science-of-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TL and hopefully other PSI Readers,
Just went to your link and read: “What does ‘science’ mean in the following question? “Why do people deny the science of climate change?”
My answer is: Too many of today’s SCIENTISTS have not read ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’ as translated to the English language by Crew and de Salvio, 1914 and Newton’s ‘The Principlia’ as translated to the English language by Motte, 1848. So how can a non-scientist know what the fundamentals of SCIENCE as illustrated (demonstrated) by these two founders of Physical Science when the pretending SCIENTISTS have no clue because they haven’t read these two books.
I also read at your link that you study world history. So maybe you have read these two books and have studied Stonehenge and therefore know that some people dug 56 regularly spaced holes in a quite near circle maybe 4000 years ago. And that the ‘regular spacing between these holes is about 16.5 feet, the English Rod, with which much of the land of the USA was surveyed near the founding of this nation.several centuries ago.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
What energy an object absorbs from radiation is determined by the materials it is made from, with different materials absorbing different wavelengths.
TL Winslow:
How lame can you get?
James McGinn:
Lame? How so? Is it not true? You need to explain how it’s lame. Or are you yourself too confused to do that? (Be honest.)
TL Winslow:
All black bodies absorb and emit all wavelengths.
James McGinn:
Okay, but so what? I think you should explain why you think this is significant. Don’t just assume it is obvious.
TL Winslow:
Only polar gas molecules absorb and emit in certain wavelength bands. That’s the basis of Earth climate science. I guess Rose wasn’t in class the day they taught that in 5th grade.
James McGinn:
You are just confused. The gas molecules in earth’s atmosphere are not polar. The only molecules in earth’s atmosphere that are polar, H2O, are not gaseous (look at a H2O phase diagram) they are liquid (and, I guess, we could say they are partially solid because of the surface tension properties of H2O).
Also, its being polar does not explain the diversity of behaviors that are evident in the anomalies of H2O. Until this hole in our greater understanding is filled there really is no basis for name calling.
TL Winslow:
I wonder if Rose can even do calculus, or even trigonometry. It doesn’t seem likely.
James McGinn:
As people like yourself have demonstated vividly, knowing math is no antidote to the deep confusions that have been incorporated into many models in science by the confused thinking of our scientific forefathers. The problem isn’t with Herb Rose, who I think is slighly off target. The problem is with tradition that harbors a deep confusion that they are in denial about. Maybe you should consider these things at a deeper level than that of a fifth grader.
TL Winslow:
Yet he portrays himself as the next Einstein.
James McGinn:
Newton, Einstein, and Feynman all suffered from the delusion that evaporated water became gaseous in earth’s atmosphere. This suggests deep delusions about H2O that are the cause of the deeper delusions that underlie global warming hysteria. Through recognitions of the absudity of this supposition Rose’s thinking is head and shoulder’s above that of these three scientific heroes, all of whom were sceptical of meteorology but unable to offer improvements.
TL Winslow:
Why does P-S disgrace itself by featuring his crackpot articles? The IPCC octopus has long been claiming that P-S is a pseudoscience rag, and it’s playing into their hands despite being right on the CO2 global warming issue. Is P-S falling into the trap of printing every crackpot’s zany Looney Tunes theories just because he says the greenhouse warming theory is wrong?
James McGinn:
In my opinion P-S has disgraced itself from the outset by way of association with engineers that carry deep delusions about the oversimplified role of water in many of the popular models that have been applied to the atmosphere.
TL Winslow:
The IPCC has hijacked Big Science, leaving real science to a motley crew of independents, who ironically are the only people doing real research into the causes of Earth’s climate, CO2 not being one of them. It’s hard enough to be right in the IPCC’s world, but let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot.
James McGinn:
The IPCC hijacked science because the confused denialism of traditional science made it vulnerable to hijacking.
James McGinn / Genius
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
I don’t bother to read your comments T.L.. because you are a wikipidiot who looks up other people’s answer but has no ability to think and so have no understanding . You believe you are all knowing so I guess you are a wikipegoidiot. Since James has chimed in I have read your latest idiocy.
In a collision there is conservation of momentum and equilibrium of energy. When a small object with high velocity (energy), like a car, strikes a large object with less velocity (energy), like a truck, it will transfer
energy to it regardless of mass. When energy equalizes there is no more transfer of energy. If you don’t understand the conservation of momentum go back to wikipedia for summer school.
Atoms and molecules may have the same number of protons and electrons but because the protons are concentrated in the center they radiate a negative electric field. When they move this produces a change in the electric field which changes the magnetic field. The laws of thermodynamics states that any moving object (above absolute zero) will radiate energy. If you ever make it to 5th grade maybe they’ll teach you that.
I don’t know where you got the information that black bodies emit all bands of radiation, that would make them white bodies. I don’t think even wikipedia is that stupid. Every element has a unique spectrum of wavelengths they emit whether they are polar or not.
When you keep spouting nonsense like it was gospel it shows that you are not only stupid but a fool.
.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TL,
I tend to agree with you about Herb but here are some observed facts about Herb’s articles which are posted here at PSI. His article generate more comments (discussion) than most articles. Certainly more than my essays. And I unquestionable fact is that I have been aware, by your comment: “Radiation absorption has nothing to do with it. Only charged particles do that It’s called Liénard–Wiechert potential.” I had never read about the Lienard-Wiechert potential before.
Thus, supporting the PSI posting of Herb’s article.
And I read that Galileo stated: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TL,
And given my tendency to make so many errors in my writing, I can live with them and hope any intelligent reader will not dismiss what I am trying to communicate. For if a reader does not understand, he/she can always ask for a clarification.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply