So there is no greenhouse effect, and I can prove it .. what to do next?

LifeIsThermal wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, to be more precise, I can handily falsify the theory of a so called GHE, but more importantly, I can perfectly explain why earth is just as warm as it is - without "greenhouse gases". It is simple and incredibly logic. But even more incredibly, no one seemed to have brought the argument forward so far.

I will skip the part of falsifying the GHE as such, which is intersting enough but relatively meaningless by comparison to the other things I have done. I have already posted the corner stones of the theory here..

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/emissivity-of-the-ocean-d6-e1342.php

and here..

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/clouds-and-nocturnal-cooling-d6-e1366.php

There were yet some flaws in it all, and I had to through a couple details. Now that it is sorted out, it is looking more solid than ever. Of course I should add, that I have been into this only for a couple of weeks, which is not much time to overtake thousands of scientists earning their life on this subject. But given my intellectual superiority, I never had doubt to possibly do better than all of them.

Of course I wanted to put my theory to the test, which is why I exposed parts of it here. As to be expected there was not much wise response but rather some typical troll behaviour. I am well aware how (intellectual) babies will always be afraid of strangers and even more so of theories and concepts they have not heard of yet. Sorry, I can not take much regard on that.

I also sent a copy of the whole story to Mr. Christopher Keating, the guy who once put up a reward of 30.000$ for proving climate change was not real. There was a time limit for that, and no I did not ask him for money. Rather I wanted him to challenge my theory, and he failed miserably.
Mainly he critizised me for being so vain to think I could be smarter than all the experts. When I responded that I was simply a genius by my IQ and could naturally do such things, he responded "An IQ is merely a measure of how well you learn". Which is probably the reason why Mr. Keating "knowing it all" will not need one

Yeah, me too. I use heat transfer basically, and I connect it to the core temperature with the assumption that the core has the same surface temperature as the sun. Because, how could a glowing interior have any other temperature, when the surface is in a proven equilibrium shown by the confirmed addition of only 90mW internally generated heat. If the earth emits ~390W/m^2+90mW/m^2, it means that it is almost perfectly balanced. People seems to forget that the heat has to balance to a glowing enourmous mass with a shell, it doesn´t bounce at the surface. Absorbed at an intensity of 1361W/(4/3)^2 according to just an empty spherical shell surrounded by another shell(atmos), on half the surface area that emits the same amount. That gives a surface flux of 382W/m^2, or about 286-287 Kelvin. A slightly different value to the widely known mean of 288K, but we know that earth is not a perfect sphere, don´t we?

If you take the surface flux and just use standard net transfer. Then remember that absorbed solar heat has to be emitted according to inverse square ****er, then you get what? 1361-382/4=Tadaa! 256Kelvin

The core then. If the atmosphere emits 244,75 watts, the source has to emit 4x244,75=979 badass Watts. If the core has the temperature of the surface of the sun, and internal layers is assumed to process that energy in the same way, then each surface of a layer and volume above it will decrease it´s intensity to 1/4 for each step. That gives 8 steps. Take the fourth root of 979*4^8/0.0000000567=5795 Kelvin. I would say that is close enough, and if you use the observed mean values instead of the unrealistic perfect spherical empty massless volume with shells, you get closer. Really proud of that shit. Hillbillyphysics, getting shit sorted out.

Now, my model is more complete, it describes the atmospheres distribution of energy as well, heat transfer only. It nail diffuse solar radiation in zenith+direct radiation as well as only direct radiation. But the most exciting part came in last. It is a beauty. Why didn´t anyone think about the connection between gravity and heat. They are equal. The core temp and gravity are speculative, but the rest I really think is correct.

https://lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/

I have a mistress, thermodynamics. The answer to everything. The formula for emitted intensity, the steffo-bollo equation, is the formula for everything. But shhh, don´t say anything, watch the stupid people say stupid things about dark matter and other ghost stories. It´s hilarious.

Were you really that cocky to him? I mean, I love being cocky to climate-retards, but scientists I try to respect. But Michael Mann is a person I would like to punch in the face. I really hate that guy. If I ever get the chance, I´m going to punch him silly and take a dump on his face.

Wake wrote:

LifeIsThermal wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, to be more precise, I can handily falsify the theory of a so called GHE, but more importantly, I can perfectly explain why earth is just as warm as it is - without "greenhouse gases". It is simple and incredibly logic. But even more incredibly, no one seemed to have brought the argument forward so far.

I will skip the part of falsifying the GHE as such, which is intersting enough but relatively meaningless by comparison to the other things I have done. I have already posted the corner stones of the theory here..

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/emissivity-of-the-ocean-d6-e1342.php

and here..

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/clouds-and-nocturnal-cooling-d6-e1366.php

There were yet some flaws in it all, and I had to through a couple details. Now that it is sorted out, it is looking more solid than ever. Of course I should add, that I have been into this only for a couple of weeks, which is not much time to overtake thousands of scientists earning their life on this subject. But given my intellectual superiority, I never had doubt to possibly do better than all of them.

Of course I wanted to put my theory to the test, which is why I exposed parts of it here. As to be expected there was not much wise response but rather some typical troll behaviour. I am well aware how (intellectual) babies will always be afraid of strangers and even more so of theories and concepts they have not heard of yet. Sorry, I can not take much regard on that.

I also sent a copy of the whole story to Mr. Christopher Keating, the guy who once put up a reward of 30.000$ for proving climate change was not real. There was a time limit for that, and no I did not ask him for money. Rather I wanted him to challenge my theory, and he failed miserably.
Mainly he critizised me for being so vain to think I could be smarter than all the experts. When I responded that I was simply a genius by my IQ and could naturally do such things, he responded "An IQ is merely a measure of how well you learn". Which is probably the reason why Mr. Keating "knowing it all" will not need one

Yeah, me too. I use heat transfer basically, and I connect it to the core temperature with the assumption that the core has the same surface temperature as the sun. Because, how could a glowing interior have any other temperature, when the surface is in a proven equilibrium shown by the confirmed addition of only 90mW internally generated heat. If the earth emits ~390W/m^2+90mW/m^2, it means that it is almost perfectly balanced. People seems to forget that the heat has to balance to a glowing enourmous mass with a shell, it doesn´t bounce at the surface. Absorbed at an intensity of 1361W/(4/3)^2 according to just an empty spherical shell surrounded by another shell(atmos), on half the surface area that emits the same amount. That gives a surface flux of 382W/m^2, or about 286-287 Kelvin. A slightly different value to the widely known mean of 288K, but we know that earth is not a perfect sphere, don´t we?

If you take the surface flux and just use standard net transfer. Then remember that absorbed solar heat has to be emitted according to inverse square ****er, then you get what? 1361-382/4=Tadaa! 256Kelvin

The core then. If the atmosphere emits 244,75 watts, the source has to emit 4x244,75=979 badass Watts. If the core has the temperature of the surface of the sun, and internal layers is assumed to process that energy in the same way, then each surface of a layer and volume above it will decrease it´s intensity to 1/4 for each step. That gives 8 steps. Take the fourth root of 979*4^8/0.0000000567=5795 Kelvin. I would say that is close enough, and if you use the observed mean values instead of the unrealistic perfect spherical empty massless volume with shells, you get closer. Really proud of that shit. Hillbillyphysics, getting shit sorted out.

Now, my model is more complete, it describes the atmospheres distribution of energy as well, heat transfer only. It nail diffuse solar radiation in zenith+direct radiation as well as only direct radiation. But the most exciting part came in last. It is a beauty. Why didn´t anyone think about the connection between gravity and heat. They are equal. The core temp and gravity are speculative, but the rest I really think is correct.

https://lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/

I have a mistress, thermodynamics. The answer to everything. The formula for emitted intensity, the steffo-bollo equation, is the formula for everything. But shhh, don´t say anything, watch the stupid people say stupid things about dark matter and other ghost stories. It´s hilarious.

Were you really that cocky to him? I mean, I love being cocky to climate-retards, but scientists I try to respect. But Michael Mann is a person I would like to punch in the face. I really hate that guy. If I ever get the chance, I´m going to punch him silly and take a dump on his face.

The interior of the Sun is some 2 million degrees K and this temperature in the photosphere would be far into the cosmic ray region. Getting anything out of this core and into the photosphere loses so much energy that the surface temperature has fallen all the way to 5,000 K or so. This is in the visible light spectrum with some UV and some IR.

I'll look through your postings and let you know what I think of it. I think that Leitwolf was on the right track but he didn't make his thoughts very clear. You can't just think you have the answers - you have to be able to explain them to others.

Wake wrote:

Wake wrote:

LifeIsThermal wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, to be more precise, I can handily falsify the theory of a so called GHE, but more importantly, I can perfectly explain why earth is just as warm as it is - without "greenhouse gases". It is simple and incredibly logic. But even more incredibly, no one seemed to have brought the argument forward so far.

I will skip the part of falsifying the GHE as such, which is intersting enough but relatively meaningless by comparison to the other things I have done. I have already posted the corner stones of the theory here..

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/emissivity-of-the-ocean-d6-e1342.php

and here..

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/clouds-and-nocturnal-cooling-d6-e1366.php

There were yet some flaws in it all, and I had to through a couple details. Now that it is sorted out, it is looking more solid than ever. Of course I should add, that I have been into this only for a couple of weeks, which is not much time to overtake thousands of scientists earning their life on this subject. But given my intellectual superiority, I never had doubt to possibly do better than all of them.

Of course I wanted to put my theory to the test, which is why I exposed parts of it here. As to be expected there was not much wise response but rather some typical troll behaviour. I am well aware how (intellectual) babies will always be afraid of strangers and even more so of theories and concepts they have not heard of yet. Sorry, I can not take much regard on that.

I also sent a copy of the whole story to Mr. Christopher Keating, the guy who once put up a reward of 30.000$ for proving climate change was not real. There was a time limit for that, and no I did not ask him for money. Rather I wanted him to challenge my theory, and he failed miserably.
Mainly he critizised me for being so vain to think I could be smarter than all the experts. When I responded that I was simply a genius by my IQ and could naturally do such things, he responded "An IQ is merely a measure of how well you learn". Which is probably the reason why Mr. Keating "knowing it all" will not need one

Yeah, me too. I use heat transfer basically, and I connect it to the core temperature with the assumption that the core has the same surface temperature as the sun. Because, how could a glowing interior have any other temperature, when the surface is in a proven equilibrium shown by the confirmed addition of only 90mW internally generated heat. If the earth emits ~390W/m^2+90mW/m^2, it means that it is almost perfectly balanced. People seems to forget that the heat has to balance to a glowing enourmous mass with a shell, it doesn´t bounce at the surface. Absorbed at an intensity of 1361W/(4/3)^2 according to just an empty spherical shell surrounded by another shell(atmos), on half the surface area that emits the same amount. That gives a surface flux of 382W/m^2, or about 286-287 Kelvin. A slightly different value to the widely known mean of 288K, but we know that earth is not a perfect sphere, don´t we?

If you take the surface flux and just use standard net transfer. Then remember that absorbed solar heat has to be emitted according to inverse square ****er, then you get what? 1361-382/4=Tadaa! 256Kelvin

The core then. If the atmosphere emits 244,75 watts, the source has to emit 4x244,75=979 badass Watts. If the core has the temperature of the surface of the sun, and internal layers is assumed to process that energy in the same way, then each surface of a layer and volume above it will decrease it´s intensity to 1/4 for each step. That gives 8 steps. Take the fourth root of 979*4^8/0.0000000567=5795 Kelvin. I would say that is close enough, and if you use the observed mean values instead of the unrealistic perfect spherical empty massless volume with shells, you get closer. Really proud of that shit. Hillbillyphysics, getting shit sorted out.

Now, my model is more complete, it describes the atmospheres distribution of energy as well, heat transfer only. It nail diffuse solar radiation in zenith+direct radiation as well as only direct radiation. But the most exciting part came in last. It is a beauty. Why didn´t anyone think about the connection between gravity and heat. They are equal. The core temp and gravity are speculative, but the rest I really think is correct.

https://lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/

I have a mistress, thermodynamics. The answer to everything. The formula for emitted intensity, the steffo-bollo equation, is the formula for everything. But shhh, don´t say anything, watch the stupid people say stupid things about dark matter and other ghost stories. It´s hilarious.

Were you really that cocky to him? I mean, I love being cocky to climate-retards, but scientists I try to respect. But Michael Mann is a person I would like to punch in the face. I really hate that guy. If I ever get the chance, I´m going to punch him silly and take a dump on his face.

The interior of the Sun is some 2 million degrees K and this temperature in the photosphere would be far into the cosmic ray region. Getting anything out of this core and into the photosphere loses so much energy that the surface temperature has fallen all the way to 5,000 K or so. This is in the visible light spectrum with some UV and some IR.

I'll look through your postings and let you know what I think of it. I think that Leitwolf was on the right track but he didn't make his thoughts very clear. You can't just think you have the answers - you have to be able to explain them to others.

My initial reaction to your paper is first - that you are suggesting the "work" accomplished in the atmosphere to move the heat about is a loss of something like 38%. Is this a practical number? As a first approximation I would think so. What we are talking about is a heat engine. And as a general rule heat engines are in the neighborhood of 50% peak efficiency.

A perfect Brayton cycle (steam cycle) is dependent upon the physical properties of water much like our atmosphere and the efficiency is around 60%.

We seem to be creeping up on what is going on without resorting to the preposterous falsified liberties taken with the properties of CO2.

LifeIsThermal wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Look at it in terms of reflected radiation. Using your figures (which are already a bit out), 107 Wm-2 of solar radiation is actually reflected. If clouds reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth by 44 Wm-2, then that must be how much they reflect, so the amount of radiation that would be reflected if Earth were cloudless would be 107 - 44 = 63 Wm-2. This then corresponds to an emissivity of 63/344 = 0.183, not the 0.21 that you claim.

You are talking complete nonsense (sorry, do not want to insult). What you are looking for is this (and did not put that way, but we can if you want to..): 63/(344-44) = ?

Take this as some homework..

Sorry, I meant albedo of course, not emissivity.

Albedo = Radiation reflected / radiation arriving

If there were no clouds, radiation reflected = 107 - 44 = 63 Wm-2
Radiation arriving remains the same = 344 Wm-2

So albedo without clouds = 63/344 = 0.183, not the 0.21 that you claim.

It makes no sense to subtract 44 Wm-2 from the radiation arriving since the radiation arriving at the Earth from the sun doesn't change if you take away the clouds.

You might want to read this paper: http://www.ijstr.org/final-print/apr2014/Estimation-Of-The-Albedo-Of-The-Earths-Atmosphere-At-Makurdi-Nigeria.pdf

Albedo is an effect of temperature. Why would anyone think anything else? Why does anyone reduce solar irradiation first, then say there is missing heat? The really dumb folks then say: look at that cold atmosphere at -18C, that is where the missing heat comes from.

Wake wrote:
This forum allows you to send private messages and I think that you and Leitwolf should cooperate in writing a paper that demonstrates what is going on. And you can submit it to one of the more reputable sources.

Leitwolf wrote:

Wake wrote:
This forum allows you to send private messages and I think that you and Leitwolf should cooperate in writing a paper that demonstrates what is going on. And you can submit it to one of the more reputable sources.

Great idea! It is just, that I do not manage to understand what LifeisThermal actually wants to say (and I read it couple of times)

It could well be a language thing, as I am neither native in english. And just maybe that is also the reason people do not really seem to get what I am saying

Damn!

Surface Detail wrote:
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?

Leitwolf wrote:

Wake wrote:
This forum allows you to send private messages and I think that you and Leitwolf should cooperate in writing a paper that demonstrates what is going on. And you can submit it to one of the more reputable sources.

Great idea! It is just, that I do not manage to understand what LifeisThermal actually wants to say (and I read it couple of times)

It could well be a language thing, as I am neither native in english. And just maybe that is also the reason people do not really seem to get what I am saying

Damn!

Leitwolf wrote:
The preliminary finalized version, or so..

Leitwolf wrote:
The preliminary finalized version, or so..

Leitwolf wrote:
So here is it all, the complete essay. It turned out somewhat larger than I intended, but things accumulated...

Wake wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
The preliminary finalized version, or so..

One thing that's interesting and you bypassed it so fast I almost missed it.

If there IS AGW the AMOUNT of warming would have to be the same everywhere wouldn't it?

Leitwolf wrote:

Wake wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
The preliminary finalized version, or so..

One thing that's interesting and you bypassed it so fast I almost missed it.

If there IS AGW the AMOUNT of warming would have to be the same everywhere wouldn't it?

Well, the story is more about the impossibility of AGW as there is no GHE. Where do you think I had indicated such an idea?

Leitwolf wrote:
No, I did not get any response from the Monckton foundation. I have sent some earlier drafts to a couple of experts. The only ones responding were Christopher Keating, who critical as expected, but failed to bring up something substantual, and some nice words from Patrick Moore and Gareth Morgan.

That's it.

Wake wrote:
Unfortunately I can't remember the people at Lawrence Livermore Labs or Sandia because of my concussion. But they all might be dead and gone now for all I know. I know that a lot of my job references are long dead. And most of those people were my age.

Leitwolf wrote:

Wake wrote:
Unfortunately I can't remember the people at Lawrence Livermore Labs or Sandia because of my concussion. But they all might be dead and gone now for all I know. I know that a lot of my job references are long dead. And most of those people were my age.

What's your age again?

Leitwolf wrote:
Oh great, that makes me feel young. VFW? I googled that .. veteran of foreign wars? If so, I hope it was less bloody than the discussion on climate science. And .. conscussion? The german translation is "Gehirnerschütterung" (might not make it for a germanism, and no, that is not a reference to you fighting the germans in WWI), which describes a rather temporal brain trauma. Were you refering to a stroke instead?

Leitwolf wrote:
The preliminary finalized version, or so..