How the GW myth is perpetuated

[coldstream]

I watched as both CBS and PBS in the States went into full damage control in the face of the coldest winter in a 100 years.. blaming it all on Arctic Warming if you can believe it.

They conveniently ignored the resurgence of the Arctic ice pack.. essentially confirming predictions that it would follow a cycle of some 150 years. What are they going to do when things get even colder.. well i'm sure it won't phase them.. they'll scour the world for climactic events that will all be blamed on AGW (oh.. excuse me, 'Climate Change'.. the new improved narrative).

These so called experts look so earnest. Can they be that stupid.. or delusional? I guess some are.. but there are some who know full well this is a fraud.. and has nothing to do with climate. It is intended to usher in an Eco-occult World Order of dramatic population reduction.. enslavement of human potential.. and a 'pristine' Eco Utopia.. complete with a High Priesthood whose pronouncements must be accepted without question or inspection.

 

[EagleSmack]

One of the hosts from NPR tried vainly to get a climate scientist to blame this winter on climate change. Over and over he tried...

"So isn't that due to climate change?... Isn't that what climate change is?... Wouldn't that be climate change?"

It was a short interview when he wouldn't tow the line. Most likely it will be the last time he's on NPR.

 

[Locutus]

For them to concede now would be 'climate scientist' suicide.

Too much face to save. They'll mantra 'til their very deaths. It's ingrained in self righteous lemmings like these.

 

[EagleSmack]

For them to concede now would be 'climate scientist' suicide.

Too much face to save. They'll mantra 'til their very deaths. It's ingrained in self righteous lemmings like these.

Exactly. Billions of dollars are at stake.

 

[darkbeaver]

Page 44 of "It's cold out today therefore climate change is a pile of crap." :lol:

Could you guys shake it up a little maybe with one of the old "Al Gore is fat therefore claimet change is bunch of crap."

or "The fundamental laws of physics are all wrong therefore climate change is a bunch of crap."

What fundamental laws are you talking about?

 

[EagleSmack]

Could you guys shake it up a little maybe with one of the old "Al Gore is fat therefore claimet change is bunch of crap."

 

[Tonington]

What fundamental laws are you talking about?

Never heard of Stefan-Boltzmann? You cannot explain the temperature of the Earth without the absorption of longwave radiation by greenhouse gases, and the re-radiated energy. You can try, but you'll very likely fail. Unless you have evidence that a greenhouse gas molecule has different radiative properties in our atmosphere than it does in the lab. After that, you have the arduous task of explaining where the excess heat is coming from, and why the satellites that measure outgoing longwave radiation in the absorptive bands where greenhouse gases dominate, are an artifact of some sort.

Good luck.

 

[darkbeaver]

Never heard of Stefan-Boltzmann? You cannot explain the temperature of the Earth without the absorption of longwave radiation by greenhouse gases, and the re-radiated energy. You can try, but you'll very likely fail. Unless you have evidence that a greenhouse gas molecule has different radiative properties in our atmosphere than it does in the lab. After that, you have the arduous task of explaining where the excess heat is coming from, and why the satellites that measure outgoing longwave radiation in the absorptive bands where greenhouse gases dominate, are an artifact of some sort.

Good luck.

Thank you, I won't bother redirecting you again to the material that laughs at the idea of twice radiated energy.

 

[Tonington]

Thank you, I won't bother redirecting you again to the material that laughs at the idea of twice radiated energy.

Yet the stratosphere cools...laugh all you want. You haven't disproved anything. Stefan-Boltzmann law is alive and well, as are the laws of thermodynamics. But don't worry, a lot of people don't understand the laws of thermodynamics. :lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

Metaphysical nonsense

Posted on December 20, 2011 by Louis Hissink
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation proceeds from a tenuous assumption – that the interlocutors there actually understand the physics behind the S-B equation for a black body.
1. A black body is one in which all radiation is absorbed and nothing emitted. Such a body is unobservable by definition.
2. Hence Black bodies cannot exist physically.
3. Black body theory isn’t scientific because, apart from never having been observed, thus requiring an explicable theory, Black Body properties are by definition also unmeasurable,and thus untestable, in the physical domain.
4. Black bodies are similar to astronomical black holes – these too are interpreted to absorb all radiation but emit none, and thus whose existence is only based on inferences and not direct observation.

 

[Tonington]

A blackbody is idealized. Lots of physics start from idealized matter, like the ideal gas laws. Do you also dispute Boyle's and Charles' Laws? Idealized sets the limit. We've manufactured materials that come very close to a black body. It's not realistic to believe that we will create a perfect black body, but that fact doesn't invalidate the law. It can even be derived from other laws...do you also dispute Planck's law?

If you dispute all these laws, then you really have not much of a physical basis left to make arguments from.

 

[Walter]

An article by one of the most qualified atmospheric scientists in the world.

Articles: Climate Consensus Con Game

 

[L Gilbert]

An article by one of the most qualified atmospheric scientists in the world.

Articles: Climate Consensus Con Game

Basically, all he is saying is that consensuses are unreliable as indicators of scientific opinion. That's hardly shocking as any scientists or people interested in sciences knows. He's dead right. That says nothing about climate or climate change.

 

[darkbeaver]

REFUTATION OF THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” THEORY ON A
THERMODYNAMIC AND HYDROSTATIC BASIS.
Alberto Miatello
Abstract
In an isolated global atmospheric system as that of Earth, in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cosmic vacuum, heat is
transmitted only in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the thermal and conductive properties of different
components, such as ocean waters, soils, and atmospheric gases, and the atmospheric adiabatic gradient. The same
conditions apply to planets having huge atmospheric masses, such as Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, whose surfaces
and/or cores are heated only by a Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, gravitational compression of gases, according to their
mass/density, as well as the impedance of their opaque atmospheres to solar radiation. In the case of Earth's
atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus,
Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle,
including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid.
Therefore, the so-called "greenhouse effect" and pseudo-mechanisms, such as "backradiation," have no scientific basis
and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’
thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth's surface, wave mechanics, and the 1
st and 2 nd laws of thermodynamics.

Index
Abstract................................................................................................................................1
1.
Introduction .....................................................................................................................2
2.
Commonly accepted definition of "greenhouse effect" (GHE). .........................................................3
3.
The fundamental equation of calorimetry as an essential basis for calculation of atmospheric heat transfer......3
4.
Soils and oceans warm the atmosphere and not vice versa................................................................4
5.
Heat fluxes in the atmosphere and their intensity...........................................................................6
6.
Why the troposphere is neither a greenhouse, nor a blanket, but a refrigerator........................................7
7.
The fundamental equation of hydrostatic distribution of atmospheric thermal energy...............................10
8.
Analysis of Venus’s heating denies the GHE hypothesis!................................................................15
9.
Extension of the "Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism," as heating by gravitational compression of atmospheric mass,
to Venus. Hydrostatic and mathematic demonstration....................................................................18
10.
The GHE hypothesis violates the 1
st
and 2
nd
laws of thermodynamics...................................................20
11.
The impossible "yield" of the greenhouse gas thermodynamic cycle....................................................22
12.
The erroneous theory of "backradiation" and CO
2
emissivity.............................................................23


http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,674

18.
Conclusions
One of the most amusing thoughts one can have regarding the incredible longevity in the last decades of the clumsy
GHE hypothesis relates to the paradoxical and amazing contrast between its "luck" and popularity in mass media
and its absolute lack of any serious or valid scientific basis. It spontaneously brings to mind the fable of the naked
king, in which everyone in the court marvels over the naked king's elegant clothes because no one dares to point out
the real situation. Thus, as correctly observed by the engineer Heinz Thieme ("Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis
violates .... " [see ref. 6]
), it is truly stunning that a "theory" with no serious scientific basis could find room in ourworld, albeit in a discursive way, being impossible to prove mathematically and not based on established ortheoretical physical laws that can be found in any scientific texts.
Among Einstein's many documented aphorisms, there is one regarding theories of physics, the scientific method,
and epistemology. Einstein rightly said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong." One could produce 99 demonstrations in favor of a scientific theory, but a solitary
unfavorable result would be sufficient to refute it. This is not a new idea, as many years earlier Thomas H. Huxley
stated, "Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact," and "The
deepest sin of the human mind is to believe things without evidence."
liii
Now, the most surprising aspect of the GHE hypothesis is that no real evidence can be found in its favor, but ratherthere are numerous of demonstrations against its validity; confirmation of GHE simply cannot be found, howevermuch it is sought. In this work, after the GHE hypothesis was disassembled and analyzed using multiple approaches of physics,including calorimetry, thermodynamics, hydrostatics, wave mechanics, entropy, efficiency of thermal cycles,astrophysics, fluid dynamics, and statistics, it is quite relevant to note that this hypothesis violates, sometimes inembarrassing ways, a number of laws and methods, often flagrantly. These violations include the summation of heatfluxes and opposite vectors when subtraction is required, energy being created out of nothing by self-reflection,thermodynamic cycles with impossible yields, well above 100%, decreasing entropy in irreversible phenomena, coldgases “warming” liquids having heat capacities more than 3000 times higher while not receiving any externalenergy, and the SB equation being wrongly calculated by ignoring the emissivity of the material being irradiated.And, not forgetting all of the depressing and shameful "demonization" of CO2
in these past decades, a review of
botanic findings dating back to the Neolithic, 4000–6000 years ago, is enough to reveal that temperatures were
higher on average than now by as much as 4°C and, where today there is the Ruitor glacier, conifers and lime trees
once grew. In the end, when asking about the mysterious reasons why such a preposterous "theory" has lasted so
long without a clear rejection by scientists and when trying to peer beyond the well-known political exploitation
("the worst scientific scandal of all ages," as defined by Prof. Itoh of Tokyo University
liv
), it appears that the better
and more honest answer has been given by the Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv, who candidly admitted a few years ago, "If I was asked about global warming a few years ago, I would have said, 'It's for CO 2 ,' Why? Simply because, like everyone, I listened to what the media were saying!" This work is dedicated to those who have the intellectual honesty of Nir Shaviv and have decided to reflect on a problem using their own minds, logic, and reason, no matter what the majority of the people are saying. Finally, one needs to ask about the political impetus or goals behind those trying to foist a patently false scientific "theory" on the public, embellishing it with apocalyptic, time-is-running-out fear-mongering, and constantly suggesting or even demanding absurd, damaging, and Draconian solutions which always hurt the people and do nothing for the planet or the climate. Acknowledgments: The author wishes to thank several persons, whose cooperation was really priceless for the accomplishment of this paper. First of all, John ‘O Sullivan for his tireless support of new works as editor of P.S.I. and for his patience. Then Joseph Postma and Nasif Nahle, for their first reading and encouraging evaluation of the manuscript, Hans Schreuder and Matthias Kleespies, for their first revision and suggestions. Last but not least Sabin Colton, for his very accurate final revision and his important comments. Of course, I am the solely responsible for any mistakes the reader should find in this work.

 

[Walter]

STFU, Krauthammer. You're confusing us.

Heating up: Climate change advocates try to silence Krauthammer | Fox News

 

[Tonington]

In an isolated global atmospheric system as that of Earth, in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cosmic vacuum, heat is transmitted only in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the thermal and conductive properties of different components, such as ocean waters, soils, and atmospheric gases, and the atmospheric adiabatic gradient. The same conditions apply to planets having huge atmospheric masses, such as Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, whose surfaces and/or cores are heated only by a Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, gravitational compression of gases, according to their mass/density, as well as the impedance of their opaque atmospheres to solar radiation. In the case of Earth's atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus, Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle, including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid.
Therefore, the so-called "greenhouse effect" and pseudo-mechanisms, such as "backradiation," have no scientific basis and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’ thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth's surface, wave mechanics, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

So, according to this drivel, planetary atmospheres can be opaque to solar radiation, and therefore the only heating of the the surface is due to heat driven by compression of the planetary system...yet if an atmosphere is opaque to longwave radiation, and prevents heat from being radiated away, then it's not consistent with the laws of physics? That is illogical, and very wrong. It's OK to admit that you don't understand thermodynamics dim rodent. Most do not.

 

[Zipperfish]

So, according to this drivel, planetary atmospheres can be opaque to solar radiation, and therefore the only heating of the the surface is due to heat driven by compression of the planetary system...yet if an atmosphere is opaque to longwave radiation, and prevents heat from being radiated away, then it's not consistent with the laws of physics? That is illogical, and very wrong. It's OK to admit that you don't understand thermodynamics dim rodent. Most do not.

Yeah that one was pretty funny.

If molecules can't refelct radaition, then how does a mirror work?

If the greenhouse effect is false, then why doesn't the earth cool down to around -200 degrees every might?

If local entropy can only increase, even in an open system, how does that explain humans, since we are clear evidence of entropy decreasing locally.

 

[Locutus]

COLD SHOULDER: ABC, CBS Exclude Scientists Critical of Global Warming for More Than 1,300 Days | CNS News

Well surely there isn't some sort of agenda at the root of this. Surely. :lol:

 

[pgs]

COLD SHOULDER: ABC, CBS Exclude Scientists Critical of Global Warming for More Than 1,300 Days | CNS News

Well surely there isn't some sort of agenda at the root of this. Surely. :lol:

There is no story if there is no global warming and they need a story to sell advertising .

 

[Locutus]

It might just be me but I think we're being had.