Michael Mann: Harper's War on Science
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Infrared Radiation – some paradoxes
Posted on February 27, 2014 by Louis Hissink
The following Youtube Video is an interview of Gerry Pollack discussing the Fourth Phase of water. Pay attention to his comments concerning infrared radiation and the difference between EZ-water and bulk-water.
EZ water is ice-like in there are parallel hexagonal sheets that are slightly offset to each other and called a liquid crystal. This EZ water is adjacent to the structureless bulk-water. Crucially both phases are at the same temperature, but take an infrared image of the EZ-water — bulk-water interface, and the bulk water is producing more IR than the EZ-water, implying the EZ-water is cooler than the bulk-water; but it isn’t, because both are at the same temperature. Instead IR is a measure of charge motion, not temperature. Crystals have less brownian motion than liquids, hence the liquid phase produces more IR than the solid phase at the same temperature. That is, IR does not measure heat.
Now think about this and apply it to the present global warming debate over the IR effect of CO2. What is the down welling measured IR coming from? Given that the atmosphere isn’t a perfect dielectric and does allow small electric currents to pass to and from the earth under clear sky conditions, (and of course larger currents during rain and thunderstorms with lightning), what is the source of the IR?
Is the IR coming from the atmosphere gases or is it also coming from atmospheric electric currents? And how could we differentiate between them? And who says the downwelling IR is actually heat, and not simply a measure of the brownian state of the gases comprising the atmosphere, unrelated to heat itself. If the IR downwelling isn’t heat, then the whole global warming theory is wrong; the data does support this conclusion, that CO2 does not produce down welling heat since the temperature is at present static while CO2 is rapidly increasing.
Like I said before, we have the basic physics wrong. IR is a measure of atomic activity, not heat. CO2 is not heating the planet, and can’t heat the planet. It does not cause a greenhouse effect either.
Update: Infrared radiation is caused by moving electric charges, hence the atmospheric downwelling IR would be sourced from the atmospheric electric currents, and not CO2.
Update 1: Clarifying, the downwelling measured IR is indicating temperature, not heat.
Posted on February 27, 2014 by Louis Hissink
The following Youtube Video is an interview of Gerry Pollack discussing the Fourth Phase of water. Pay attention to his comments concerning infrared radiation and the difference between EZ-water and bulk-water.
EZ water is ice-like in there are parallel hexagonal sheets that are slightly offset to each other and called a liquid crystal. This EZ water is adjacent to the structureless bulk-water. Crucially both phases are at the same temperature, but take an infrared image of the EZ-water — bulk-water interface, and the bulk water is producing more IR than the EZ-water, implying the EZ-water is cooler than the bulk-water; but it isn’t, because both are at the same temperature. Instead IR is a measure of charge motion, not temperature. Crystals have less brownian motion than liquids, hence the liquid phase produces more IR than the solid phase at the same temperature. That is, IR does not measure heat.
Now think about this and apply it to the present global warming debate over the IR effect of CO2. What is the down welling measured IR coming from? Given that the atmosphere isn’t a perfect dielectric and does allow small electric currents to pass to and from the earth under clear sky conditions, (and of course larger currents during rain and thunderstorms with lightning), what is the source of the IR?
Is the IR coming from the atmosphere gases or is it also coming from atmospheric electric currents? And how could we differentiate between them? And who says the downwelling IR is actually heat, and not simply a measure of the brownian state of the gases comprising the atmosphere, unrelated to heat itself. If the IR downwelling isn’t heat, then the whole global warming theory is wrong; the data does support this conclusion, that CO2 does not produce down welling heat since the temperature is at present static while CO2 is rapidly increasing.
Like I said before, we have the basic physics wrong. IR is a measure of atomic activity, not heat. CO2 is not heating the planet, and can’t heat the planet. It does not cause a greenhouse effect either.
Update: Infrared radiation is caused by moving electric charges, hence the atmospheric downwelling IR would be sourced from the atmospheric electric currents, and not CO2.
Update 1: Clarifying, the downwelling measured IR is indicating temperature, not heat.
Please pay attention. Copy said all the reconstructions are wrong. Changing Mann's methods as the panel recommended did not change the results, and thus it is consistent with those other reconstructions. The hockey stick I'd s a persistent finding even using multiple different methodologies. That's very good evidence that the hockey stick is in fact accurately portraying historical climate.
Oh, and Mann is also a math guy. Check out his CV.
Kinda makes you wonder why Mann has refused to open the books on his data. Not only would that have been fuel to pursue his suit against Tim Ball, but due to his refusal, it is now his only 'out' with respect to the multiple suits lodged against him.
Sure is odd that if his methodologies are/were sound that he'd refuse to defend himself.
Michael E Mann "Sloppy and Unethical" :: SteynOnline
WOW!!
For a scientist, you show a disturbing ability to disregard the most obvious evidence.
"That's very good evidence that the hockey stick is in fact accurately portraying historical climate."
But the graph has been close to FLAT for 15 years........I'd say that is pretty good evidence Mann is wrong.
WOW!!
For a scientist, you show a disturbing ability to disregard the most obvious evidence.
"That's very good evidence that the hockey stick is in fact accurately portraying historical climate."
But the graph has been close to FLAT for 15 years........I'd say that is pretty good evidence Mann is wrong.
I agree with this, but I also think humans have pushed the cycle into a different rate of activity than it's usual rate.
What graph is this that you keep referring to? And do you mean the last 15 years?
(My apologies for not keeping up with the latest discussions about climate).
A while ago I read a piece in SciAm about Mann and the hockey stick and finally found it again: Behind the Hockey Stick - Scientific American
And here's a pretty good article from Forbes magazine: "Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data - Forbes
Mckitrick was wrong.
Read all about it here:
https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Do as McKitrick Says, not as he Doesn't Do – Check the Trends
In his comment, McKitrick actually touched on the solution to the problem. Look at the trends! The trend is essentially the slope of the data, which is unaffected by the choice of baseline.
Unfortunately, McKitrick was satisfied to try and eyeball the trends in the draft version of Figure 1.4 rather than actually calculate them. That's a big no-no. Scientists don't rely on their senses for a reason – our senses can easily deceive us.
So what happens if we actually analyze the trends in both the observational data and model simulations? That's what I did in my original blog post. Tamino has helpfully compared the modeled and observed trends in the figure below.
The observed trends are entirely consistent with the projections made by the climate models in each IPCC report.
Also, very easily debunked.
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Climate myth:
It hasn't warmed since 1998
For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter)
Climate Reality:
No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximatley 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.
The article is talking about predictions and we know how well the scare-mongers predict.
They sure do Clifford. They sure do.Deniers gotta deny:
Struggling to keep a discredited global warming crisis afloat, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chair Raj Pachauri this week denied the well-documented plateau in temperatures during the past 15-plus years. Pachauri’s denialism contradicted his own admission earlier this year that there has been a 17-year plateau in global temperatures.
The IPCC is in full damage-control mode after it leaked advance copies of an upcoming Summary for Policymakers to what it assumed would be friendly journalists. The journalists, however, quickly realized the IPCC Summary for Policymakers contained several embarrassing walk-backs from alarmist statements in prior IPCC reports.
Two of the most embarrassing aspects of the Summary for Policymakers are (1) IPCC’s admission that global warming has occurred much slower than IPCC previously forecast and (2) IPCC is unable to explain the ongoing plateau in global temperatures. IPCC computer models have predicted twice as much warming as has occurred in the real world, and virtually none of the IPCC computer models can replicate or account for the recent lack of global warming.
Rather than acknowledge that perhaps IPCC overshot its predictions in past reports, Pachauri doubled down on denialism, claiming there has been no slowdown in the pace of global warming.
“I don’t think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase),” Pachauri told BBC News Monday
. Pachauri’s astonishing denialism not only undercuts IPCC credibility, it also contradicts his own words earlier this year in an interview with the Australian. “The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises,” the Australian’s Graham Lloyd reported in February after interviewing Pachauri.
Last edited:
Little Billy walks into the bathroom and spots his Mom bathing in the tub.
He looks at her, points at her crotch and exclaims "What's that?!"
Billy's Mom, quickly responds: "Well, that's where you dad hit me with the axe"
Billy replies: "Good shot, he hit you right in the ****"
“Researching global warming’s pause,” reads a BBC News headline.
“A cooler Pacific may be behind recent pause in global warming,” reads a National Public Radio headline.
“Why has global warming paused?” asks a Christian Science Monitor headline.
“What to make of a climate-change plateau,” reads a New York Times headline.
“Global warming has ‘paused’ because of natural causes but will continue to rise, scientists claim,” reads a UK Daily Mail headline.
There isn't enough Proactiv inventory to cover the red if even one of these idiots had the ballz to admit they were wrong. And they would be doing it publicly.
The real laff, and well, shame...comes from online knowitalls that cannot, will not and will never, for fear of losing the 'big game', admit they were misled and bought the malarkey. Ego. :lol:
The real laff, and well, shame...comes from online knowitalls that cannot, will not and will never, for fear of losing the 'big game', admit they were misled and bought the malarkey. Ego. :lol:
And what a Big Game this is for them. If there was no possibility of gaining billions, or even trillions with a win they would not even be playing.
I still find it amusing that the BASIC countries get a free pass on climate change reparations, or even may get a cut of the loot. Even more amusing is that you can pollute all you want as long as you pay under this scam.