| The Kent Papers: NEW THERMODYNAMICS: HOW MANKIND'S USE OF ENERGY INFLUENCES CLIMATE CHANGE31-01-2023 16:57 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14389) |
kent5915 wrote:
Have any of you considered that climate change primarily involves man's energy with CO2 and albedo changes being secondary factors.
My paper showing man's energy contributions to climate change accounts for witnessed climate change.
The paper is titled: "New Thermodynamics: How man's use of energy influences climate change"
Hadronic journal, 45 (4) pg 399-421 (2022): DOI 10.29083/HJ.45./04.2022/SC399
It can also be read on my academia page: https://independent.academia.edu/kentmayhew/Papers
Sincerely Kent Mayhew
We can start with the abstract.
NEW THERMODYNAMICS: HOW MANKIND'S USE OF
ENERGY INFLUENCES CLIMATE CHANGE
Kent Mayhew
68 Pineglen Cres.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2G OG8 kent.mayhew@gmail.com
Received November 3 , 2022
Abstract
Radiative heat transfer is currently thought of only in terms of photons as EM waves interacting with a molecule's lopsided charge distributions. This and infrared spectrometry have rendered the claim that both oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation. This has emboldened the greenhouse effect. Photons acting as particles hence transferring their momentum/energy onto gases is discussed. This phenomenon has been witnessed (but not acknowledged) in various experiments. Importantly, this changes how one models climate change.
As shown by their heat capacities, all polyatomic gases absorb heat. This includes 02 and N2 which constitute 99% of our atmosphere. Our whole atmosphere becomes both Earth's thermal blanket, and the heat sink for human activities. It will be shown that man's energy use does explain what has been witnessed in climate change. Namely, when compared to our Sun's energy that reaches Earth's surface, man's energy use results in a minimum of 0.6 oc temperature increase in the lower troposphere.
Keywords: Earth's thermal blanket, global warming, radiative heat transfer, net-zero-effect
Same methodology, let's look at this line by line (with minimal cheating permitted):
Radiative heat transfer is currently thought of only in terms of photons as EM waves interacting with a molecule's lopsided charge distributions.
1. There is no such thing as radiative heat transfer; only radiative heat.
2. Radiative heat is electromagnetic power and is not discussed in terms of photons because radiative heat falls under classical physics models and does not require quantum mechanics.
3. Lopsided charge distributions? Are you F'ing kidding me?
This and infrared spectrometry have rendered the claim that both oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation.
Do not blame spectometry for this disinformation. The source of this claim is dishonest warmizombies who are trying to hoodwink a scientifically illiterate, and thus gullible, public. No person who has ever seen how a heat lamp effectively heats air will buy the claim that a heat lamp doesn't heat air. Nonetheless, unscrupulous warmizombie recruiters rely on a mostly docile/spineless public who won't call boooooolsch't on anything.
This has emboldened the greenhouse effect.
There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. It cannot therefore be emboldened.
Photons acting as particles hence transferring their momentum/energy onto gases is discussed.
Photons are particles. They transfer their infinitesimal mass to the matter that absorbs them.
This phenomenon has been witnessed (but not acknowledged) in various experiments.
We have reached the "You must first believe" requirement. All religions have a "Witness" statement whereby the dogma that must be believed is proclaimed to have been observed/witnessed ... and that now the congregation is called upon to profess faith in the obligatory dogma.
Here Kent is repeating the standard Wikipedia pronouncement that Global Warming is the "observed" change in our climate. Now Kent is free to tell us what we are to believe because he has now checked this box.
Importantly, this changes how one models climate change.
There is no such thing as a global climate, hence there has never been any climate models. Claims of climate models are like claims of Bigfoot sightings, i.e. numerous, severely blurry in the details, always a hoax, no one ever actually able to produce one, etc...
As shown by their heat capacities, all polyatomic gases absorb heat.
No polyatomic gases absorb heat. Nothing absorbs heat. Heat is not something that can be absorbed by anything, nor can heat ever be trapped, contained or stored. Kent simply never learned what heat and thermal energy are.
All polyatomic gases have different heat capacities, so their heat capacities cannot be that which shows that they all absorb electromagnetic energy. The fact that all matter has an emissivity greater than zero is what shows that all matter absorbs electromagnetic energy.
This includes 02 and N2 which constitute 99% of our atmosphere.
Yes. "All matter" definitely includes O2 and N2.
Our whole atmosphere becomes both Earth's thermal blanket, and the heat sink for human activities.
We have reached the thesis statement, i.e. the religious doctrine that we are to conclude, except that we don't conclude this from anything written in the paper. We are told explicitly to believe this here in this one sentence.
Unfortunately, the tired warmizombie dogma "greenhouse gas forms a thick blanket that traps excess, waste heat and pushes Climate to the tipping point, although it might already be too late" ... or alternately, the skeptic/climate lemming dogma "greenhouse gas forms a cumfy blanket that cradles the earth in loving warmth" ... is religio-babble that requires complete science denial to accept. The scientifically illiterate are the target audience for recruiters who spew this psychological warfare and sadly, Kent has identified himself as one of the gullibles who fell for it and became indoctrinated. This is why all of his papers carry the same misunderstandings of science that are needed to sufficiently confuse any audience from asking any difficult or inconvenient questions.
My recommendation to Kent is to leave the cult long enough to become deprogrammed and disindoctrinated. You are not alone. There are people who will help you with science, math and logic. It's not too late to start over. It's not too late to learn some science, math and logic.
It will be shown that man's energy use does explain what has been witnessed in climate change.
... and what is it that has been "witnessed"? Why, Global Warming of course! As you can see, Kent is informing us here that we are so far beyond having to show that Global Warming is something real, and that we now need to realize that it explains ... what has been witnessed in Climate Change ... which is Global Warming ... which explains what has been witnessed in Climate Change ... which is Global Warming ... which explains what has been witnessed in Climate Change ... which is Global Warming ... which explains what has been witnessed in Climate Change ... which is Global Warming ... which explains ... the circular reasoning.
Namely, when compared to our Sun's energy that reaches Earth's surface, man's energy use results in a minimum of 0.6 C temperature increase in the lower troposphere.
We need to notice this claim. Kent is blissfully unaware that he is violating thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann (and thus Planck's). He is obviously claiming an increase in temperature, but he is not accounting for any additional energy, specifically the additional thermal energy required for temperature to increase. This is not surprising since Kent doesn't understand what thermal energy or heat is.
Keywords: Earth's thermal blanket, global warming, radiative heat transfer, net-zero-effect
Key religious terms that are to remain undefined. |
| 31-01-2023 17:17 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
The paper begins as such:
1 Introduction
Starting with the 19th century industrial revolution, mankind's activities have resulted in climate change. This is indicated by an inarguable, modest yet startling increase to our lower troposphere's mean temperature The overwhelming belief is that this is a result of the emission of greenhouse gases by mankind's technology.
Apparently this is "inarguable." It's not open for debate. Kent is telling us "Don't go there!" and that this is not allowed to be discussed. It is to be assumed. The debate is over. That ship has sailed. |
| 01-02-2023 16:53 |
gfm7175 ★★★★★
(3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:
The paper begins as such:
1 Introduction
Starting with the 19th century industrial revolution, mankind's activities have resulted in climate change. This is indicated by an inarguable, modest yet startling increase to our lower troposphere's mean temperature The overwhelming belief is that this is a result of the emission of greenhouse gases by mankind's technology.
Apparently this is "inarguable." It's not open for debate. Kent is telling us "Don't go there!" and that this is not allowed to be discussed. It is to be assumed. The debate is over. That ship has sailed.
Good ol' "settled science"... Don't you just love royal decrees from self-proclaimed kings/oligarchs that a particular topic is not open for discussion? |
| 01-02-2023 17:28 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
gfm7175 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:The paper begins as such:
1 Introduction
Starting with the 19th century industrial revolution, mankind's activities have resulted in climate change. This is indicated by an inarguable, modest yet startling increase to our lower troposphere's mean temperature The overwhelming belief is that this is a result of the emission of greenhouse gases by mankind's technology.
Apparently this is "inarguable." It's not open for debate. Kent is telling us "Don't go there!" and that this is not allowed to be discussed. It is to be assumed. The debate is over. That ship has sailed.
Good ol' "settled science"... Don't you just love royal decrees from self-proclaimed kings/oligarchs that a particular topic is not open for discussion?
Global Warming is "beyond debate" while he is throwing down the gauntlet to challenge thermodynamics.
I'm sensing a bit of a disconnect. |
| 01-02-2023 23:42 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:The paper begins as such:
1 Introduction
Starting with the 19th century industrial revolution, mankind's activities have resulted in climate change. This is indicated by an inarguable, modest yet startling increase to our lower troposphere's mean temperature The overwhelming belief is that this is a result of the emission of greenhouse gases by mankind's technology.
Apparently this is "inarguable." It's not open for debate. Kent is telling us "Don't go there!" and that this is not allowed to be discussed. It is to be assumed. The debate is over. That ship has sailed.
Good ol' "settled science"... Don't you just love royal decrees from self-proclaimed kings/oligarchs that a particular topic is not open for discussion?
Global Warming is "beyond debate" while he is throwing down the gauntlet to challenge thermodynamics.
I'm sensing a bit of a disconnect.
Me too. In anticipation of Kent's "thermodynamic throwdown", I've already been putting ice cubes into my coffee to warm it up. Kent better not let me down now............ |
|
| 02-02-2023 01:29 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:The paper begins as such:
1 Introduction
Starting with the 19th century industrial revolution, mankind's activities have resulted in climate change. This is indicated by an inarguable, modest yet startling increase to our lower troposphere's mean temperature The overwhelming belief is that this is a result of the emission of greenhouse gases by mankind's technology.
Apparently this is "inarguable." It's not open for debate. Kent is telling us "Don't go there!" and that this is not allowed to be discussed. It is to be assumed. The debate is over. That ship has sailed.
Good ol' "settled science"... Don't you just love royal decrees from self-proclaimed kings/oligarchs that a particular topic is not open for discussion?
Global Warming is "beyond debate" while he is throwing down the gauntlet to challenge thermodynamics.
I'm sensing a bit of a disconnect.
Me too. In anticipation of Kent's "thermodynamic throwdown", I've already been putting ice cubes into my coffee to warm it up. Kent better not let me down now............
You're just throwing those mathematical contrivances right in Boltzmann's face, you rabble-rouser. Be careful that you don't overheat your coffee or you might have to use a blow torch to cool it down.
I had no idea that all this time I had it all backwards. Maybe, as the temperature drops outdoors, I can save on heating bills by just leaving my doors and windows open. |
| 02-02-2023 03:00 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:The paper begins as such:
1 Introduction
Starting with the 19th century industrial revolution, mankind's activities have resulted in climate change. This is indicated by an inarguable, modest yet startling increase to our lower troposphere's mean temperature The overwhelming belief is that this is a result of the emission of greenhouse gases by mankind's technology.
Apparently this is "inarguable." It's not open for debate. Kent is telling us "Don't go there!" and that this is not allowed to be discussed. It is to be assumed. The debate is over. That ship has sailed.
Good ol' "settled science"... Don't you just love royal decrees from self-proclaimed kings/oligarchs that a particular topic is not open for discussion?
Global Warming is "beyond debate" while he is throwing down the gauntlet to challenge thermodynamics.
I'm sensing a bit of a disconnect.
Me too. In anticipation of Kent's "thermodynamic throwdown", I've already been putting ice cubes into my coffee to warm it up. Kent better not let me down now............
You're just throwing those mathematical contrivances right in Boltzmann's face, you rabble-rouser. Be careful that you don't overheat your coffee or you might have to use a blow torch to cool it down.
I had no idea that all this time I had it all backwards. Maybe, as the temperature drops outdoors, I can save on heating bills by just leaving my doors and windows open.
You and I both, man... but now we know better, and can save the planet before it's too late... but maybe it's already too late. |
| 02-02-2023 05:08 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:The paper begins as such:
1 Introduction
Starting with the 19th century industrial revolution, mankind's activities have resulted in climate change. This is indicated by an inarguable, modest yet startling increase to our lower troposphere's mean temperature The overwhelming belief is that this is a result of the emission of greenhouse gases by mankind's technology.
Apparently this is "inarguable." It's not open for debate. Kent is telling us "Don't go there!" and that this is not allowed to be discussed. It is to be assumed. The debate is over. That ship has sailed.
Good ol' "settled science"... Don't you just love royal decrees from self-proclaimed kings/oligarchs that a particular topic is not open for discussion?
Global Warming is "beyond debate" while he is throwing down the gauntlet to challenge thermodynamics.
I'm sensing a bit of a disconnect.
Me too. In anticipation of Kent's "thermodynamic throwdown", I've already been putting ice cubes into my coffee to warm it up. Kent better not let me down now............
You're just throwing those mathematical contrivances right in Boltzmann's face, you rabble-rouser. Be careful that you don't overheat your coffee or you might have to use a blow torch to cool it down.
I had no idea that all this time I had it all backwards. Maybe, as the temperature drops outdoors, I can save on heating bills by just leaving my doors and windows open.
You and I both, man... but now we know better, and can save the planet before it's too late... but maybe it's already too late.
You exaggerate. Of course there's P - L - E - N - T - Y of time. Even if it were already too late, we'd still have M - O - R - E than enough time ... unless it's already too late for that. But there's hardly any chance that we wouldn't have P - L - E - N - T - Y of time except that we know time has run out and now there's more than enough time to relax and focus on just how much time we have ... too much really, and it's not even an issue, ... but it could be just a tad too late with plenty of time and extra mustard ... but it could already be too late.
Nope. It's not too late. But it might be.
So please don't post if you are going to exaggerate. |
| 02-02-2023 19:12 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:The paper begins as such:
1 Introduction
Starting with the 19th century industrial revolution, mankind's activities have resulted in climate change. This is indicated by an inarguable, modest yet startling increase to our lower troposphere's mean temperature The overwhelming belief is that this is a result of the emission of greenhouse gases by mankind's technology.
Apparently this is "inarguable." It's not open for debate. Kent is telling us "Don't go there!" and that this is not allowed to be discussed. It is to be assumed. The debate is over. That ship has sailed.
Good ol' "settled science"... Don't you just love royal decrees from self-proclaimed kings/oligarchs that a particular topic is not open for discussion?
Global Warming is "beyond debate" while he is throwing down the gauntlet to challenge thermodynamics.
I'm sensing a bit of a disconnect.
Me too. In anticipation of Kent's "thermodynamic throwdown", I've already been putting ice cubes into my coffee to warm it up. Kent better not let me down now............
You're just throwing those mathematical contrivances right in Boltzmann's face, you rabble-rouser. Be careful that you don't overheat your coffee or you might have to use a blow torch to cool it down.
I had no idea that all this time I had it all backwards. Maybe, as the temperature drops outdoors, I can save on heating bills by just leaving my doors and windows open.
You and I both, man... but now we know better, and can save the planet before it's too late... but maybe it's already too late.
You exaggerate. Of course there's P - L - E - N - T - Y of time. Even if it were already too late, we'd still have M - O - R - E than enough time ... unless it's already too late for that. But there's hardly any chance that we wouldn't have P - L - E - N - T - Y of time except that we know time has run out and now there's more than enough time to relax and focus on just how much time we have ... too much really, and it's not even an issue, ... but it could be just a tad too late with plenty of time and extra mustard ... but it could already be too late.
Nope. It's not too late. But it might be.
So please don't post if you are going to exaggerate.
I would never exaggerATE. That's an unsubstantiATEd claim. I don't appreciATE your cATEgorization of me. |
| 02-02-2023 20:49 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:The paper begins as such:
1 Introduction
Starting with the 19th century industrial revolution, mankind's activities have resulted in climate change. This is indicated by an inarguable, modest yet startling increase to our lower troposphere's mean temperature The overwhelming belief is that this is a result of the emission of greenhouse gases by mankind's technology.
Apparently this is "inarguable." It's not open for debate. Kent is telling us "Don't go there!" and that this is not allowed to be discussed. It is to be assumed. The debate is over. That ship has sailed.
Good ol' "settled science"... Don't you just love royal decrees from self-proclaimed kings/oligarchs that a particular topic is not open for discussion?
Global Warming is "beyond debate" while he is throwing down the gauntlet to challenge thermodynamics.
I'm sensing a bit of a disconnect.
Me too. In anticipation of Kent's "thermodynamic throwdown", I've already been putting ice cubes into my coffee to warm it up. Kent better not let me down now............
You're just throwing those mathematical contrivances right in Boltzmann's face, you rabble-rouser. Be careful that you don't overheat your coffee or you might have to use a blow torch to cool it down.
I had no idea that all this time I had it all backwards. Maybe, as the temperature drops outdoors, I can save on heating bills by just leaving my doors and windows open.
You and I both, man... but now we know better, and can save the planet before it's too late... but maybe it's already too late.
You exaggerate. Of course there's P - L - E - N - T - Y of time. Even if it were already too late, we'd still have M - O - R - E than enough time ... unless it's already too late for that. But there's hardly any chance that we wouldn't have P - L - E - N - T - Y of time except that we know time has run out and now there's more than enough time to relax and focus on just how much time we have ... too much really, and it's not even an issue, ... but it could be just a tad too late with plenty of time and extra mustard ... but it could already be too late.
Nope. It's not too late. But it might be.
So please don't post if you are going to exaggerate.
I would never exaggerATE. That's an unsubstantiATEd claim. I don't appreciATE your cATEgorization of me.
You know I ATE that up ... because it might already be too lATE, like wATEr under the bridge, like coffee heATEd with ice, like a crATE of compressed CO2 tanks in GasGuzzler's garage, i.e. mere mathematical contrivances of the great historical hoaxsters. Planck sure pulled a fast one on me. |
| 02-02-2023 21:43 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Planck and Boltzmann can KISS MY ASS! |
| 02-02-2023 22:07 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
gfm7175 wrote:Planck and Boltzmann can KISS MY ASS!
You ingrATE. They gave humanity some of the best mathematical contrivances the world has ever seen, and their thermodynamics sleight-of-hand routines entertained even the most stoic of traditionalists. |