Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 2 of 2<12
30-04-2017 01:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
30-04-2017 01:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
30-04-2017 02:25
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
I might be reading to much hostility into messages here. Guess I should try to avoid whisky and forum posting. It is not my native language and I am used to being attacked wherever I discuss these things. I´ll get back some other time.
Edited on 30-04-2017 03:13
30-04-2017 06:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


OK, does gravity represent the lost work and showing that nothing else in the atmosphere such as CO2 is responsible for the difference in energy in and energy out. In fact I think you have it.
30-04-2017 22:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


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.
Edited on 30-04-2017 22:48
01-05-2017 00:04
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
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!
01-05-2017 03:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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!


What he said is that there is missing energy between the amount that is emitted by the Sun and shows on the Earth. And that is different from the amount of energy that is emitted from the Earth in all of it's manners combined.

You seemed to blame it on reflection and refraction of clouds and he blamed it on the lost "work" done to lift the heat held in the atmosphere against gravity.

When I compared that against the expected efficiency of a process that is changing the state of water it compares favorably to the Rankine cycle which also demands a change in the phase of water. (~60%)

While a regenerative cooling engine can use phase changes in water the mechanism that is working in the atmosphere doesn't operate in the same manner.

While I could assist in these things, the problem is that I'm getting old and it would do me absolutely no good at all. I think that there are many different directions you can attack the idea of AGW and every one of the shows serious problems with the so-called science being touted.

You went via reflection. LifeIsThermal went about gravity and I went about attacking the spectrometry of the problem.

(https://cyclintom.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/climate-change-for-scientists/)

But if you are under 50 or hopefully under 30 it could possibly make your careers.
11-05-2017 05:10
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
So here is it all, the complete essay. It turned out somewhat larger than I intended, but things accumulated...
Attached file:
falsifyingghe.doc
Edited on 11-05-2017 05:12
14-05-2017 02:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
Surface Detail wrote:
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?

The NASA chart needs to be discarded. It violates thermodynamics.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-05-2017 17:47
Flill
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
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!



I agree
17-05-2017 23:03
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
I have done a simple illustration to explain what is wrong about the GHE theory, and how it works properly.

18-05-2017 18:01
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
The preliminary finalized version, or so..
Attached file:
itstheoceanstupid.doc
18-05-2017 18:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Leitwolf wrote:
The preliminary finalized version, or so..


As a scientific paper it is too wordy. You are supposed to be explaining things to fellow scientists and hence more math and less words.

I am only a third of the way through it though but it looks good.
18-05-2017 23:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?
19-05-2017 00:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Leitwolf wrote:
So here is it all, the complete essay. It turned out somewhat larger than I intended, but things accumulated...


The more I read of it the better it gets. I proclaimed Earth "The Water Planet" years ago and you show just how correct that is.
19-05-2017 20:09
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
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?
19-05-2017 20:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?


I think I got the idea when you had the picture of Enceladus, if there were a real "greenhouse effect" (which we know doesn't work that way anyhow) it would work the same way increasing heat without regard to atmospheric mixing.

By the way - I think that you said that you submitted your paper to the Lord Monckton group? Did you ever get an answer back? I think that you have solved the real problem of climate change - it's because of the effects of clouds and not extraneous rare gases.

Now - what causes the cyclic variations in cloud cover?

We can easily theorize that when the atmosphere is high in humidity that clouds will form and that we will have a very high reflectivity and lower surface temperatures.

Likewise we can hypothesis that after the Earth has been in an Ice Age that the humidity can be frozen entirely out of the atmosphere. This would cause a lack of clouds and the entire Earth would be exposed to direct sunlight. This would leave the only source of albedo from Rayleigh and Mie scattering.
Edited on 19-05-2017 20:58
19-05-2017 21:10
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Enceladus only shows how the "rock solid" approach that gives us the "GHE" does not work at all.
20-05-2017 17:16
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
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.
20-05-2017 17:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


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.
20-05-2017 21:27
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
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?
20-05-2017 22:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?


Presently I'm 72. I'm VFW and since then I worked in science.
21-05-2017 06:01
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
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?
21-05-2017 17:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?


I don't think that the Vietnam War was anywhere near as bloody as the climate wars.

A concussion is one of the most common traumatic brain injuries. Yet it is treated very lightly by most emergency rooms. They check very carefully for skull damage but ignore the consequences of concussion.

In my case it was no short term memory for 2 1/2 years. And seizures that were destroying long term memory. Luckily, if you can call it that, the memory losses were almost entirely from the social section. I can't remember the deaths of either parent or the problems surrounding my divorce though I am told that it was almost entirely the fault of my ex-wife who after losing everything is now back with me.

I was afraid that I might have lost my technical ability as well but when a friend insisted that I do some work for him I understood everything and had no problem programming and doing some digital design.
01-06-2017 10:26
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Leitwolf wrote:
The preliminary finalized version, or so..


I´ve read some of it, will continue later. I notice the refractive index of water there, close to 1.33 which I use for absorption in a spherical cavity(volume). Diffusion in a spherical volume reduce intensity to 3/4 of insolation, which I consider as a geometric albedo, displayed in atmospheric circulation with cloud covers and reflective curved surfaces. I think water refraction is closely related to geometric shape in the case of earth, and water circulation is clearly heat driven inside the sphere. It behaves exactly like an energy conserving mechanism, both moving excess heat by mass transfer, and blocking inflow when releasing the excess in cold surroundings. When the excess is lost, insolation is allowed to heat again. The massive water circulation would definately be a spherical function at the densities of water observed on earth.

So, 1361W/(1.33*1.33) for the fluid water sphere and the solid surface, 287K when insolation is pi/2pi/V^2 for emission from 4pi at the surface. Acknowledging the water sphere as a part, would possibly explain why gravity gets an error of 0.8m/s on mars using this method. Good, I was not very fond of using the tropopause as a fictive spherical shell, water is a more apparent and dense liquid/fluid/solid which is a natural boundary for gravity to act on. The three phases all present on earth, makes it a perfect plastic spherical energy distribution function. But its state is entirely determined by heat from the sun and the temperature of earth. Albedo is just effects of temperature, not causes of temperature. (If I can decide)

Albedo is the stinking pig taken from optics into climate science. Why not emissivity? Albedo offers no special features, as it refers mostly to the human eye and not characteristics of radiation. Why reduce the amount of heat by 30% with albedo, and then say that there is missing heat, the surface is too hot?

Like I usually say, lets not throw out Boltzmann and Planck just yet, it is more likely an idiot miscalculating. It is a stupid move to reduce the heat source by 30% before even starting to calculate. Before I accept a theory where the coldest body of three is the main heat source, I want to look at every other explanation that humans can come up with. Heating from cold air is the least probable heat source imaginable. The first thing climate science to change is:

Don´t remove heat and then complain about calculations showing not enough solar heat to uphold surface temperature. You stole the f***ing heat, blanket-people. Get away from science, you are not capable, you can live with IS.

IS have the same peer-review process for the quran, climate scientists should feel at home.

The logic of muhammed, is as robust as the hockeystick. Islamic state would be business as usual for climate science.

Rant over
Page 2 of 2<12





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy1017-09-2019 08:43
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law64813-09-2019 05:55
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact