For Like minded people who like to see-
Long time, no see. For that my apologies, but please "enjoy" and share the attached,
Word document version
Accompanying powerpoint of suggested simplified overal thermodynamic models.
Happy Christmas to all, and raise a glass to the end of this AGW pseudo science politically conventient and funded, to make only the few richer and more powerful rubbish.
AGW IS the biggest scam in human history. Only the flat earth society came close in it's perversion of the natural sciences for the gain of a few.
Helping to correct the blatant and deliberate perversion of the natural sciences (for political and power gains of the few) is my motive.
The piece concludes with the following 5 points.
It would seem 5 main conclusions can be drawn.
1) A black body has to have a mass of 1, so current explanations of what a black body is are incorrect. This is because any number divided or multiplied by zero, is zero.
Therefore a black body of no mass can not absorb IR, nor can a black body of no mass emit IR. This is exactly the same reason why space has no temperature, how can nothing have a temperature? How can nothing absorb IR and how can nothing emit IR? There is a difference between an imaginary, but very useful concept, and plain simple make believe.
A black body of no mass is make believe, it is pseudo science.
2) A gray body, is currently calculated as a black body amount of IR for a given (temperature determined) power of emission for a gray body. Furthermore, it is physically impossible for absorption to equal emission (In = Out) for a gray body, because a gray body has volume, a volume with heat capacity. Therefore heat / energy is always going into (warming), or out of (cooling) the gray body. A gray body also expands or contracts with temperature, or vapourises or condenses with temperature. Work is done, so In can not equal Out for a gray body. Within earth’s atmosphere a gray body will also always conduct heat and energy to the surrounding atmosphere which will be convected away because of (earth’s gravity field powered) convection within the atmosphere.
Is it any wonder there is no page on Wikipedia for a gray body?
3) Modern climate science has grossly under estimated the importance of water and waters various states (of matter) within earth’s climate system, most probably to about an order of magnitude, or more.. This has also resulted in vast transports of cold within the climate system to be ignored.
4) Earth’s geothermal inputs have been incorrectly ignored and dismissed, by an approach that has a grossly distorted view of reality. Not only are geothermal inputs from earth’s hot core assumed to be insignificant to the planet’s climate system overall, but, also such inputs are assumed to be constant. There is good evidence that shows geothermal inputs are variable over varying timescales, mostly seemingly closely related / influenced by solar activity / cycles.
5) The importance of IR within earth’s climate system has been grossly over exaggerated by a misuse of both physics and the units used, particularly W/m2 within present so called climate science. This exaggeration is probably all told to about an order of magnitude.
In short, YES, I am saying "That 'carbon' pollution is a furphy?". A total and utter "furphy". I am also saying that water is THE dominant factor within earth's climate system. The pdf is intended to demonstrate this understandably, but it is a complex and vast subject area to cover, hence the length of the pdf. - My apologies for that, but due to the investment of the vested interests it is neccesarily so.
(Assuming "furphy" means deliberately wrong, a cleverly constructed and deliberate lie that almost all politicians and business (read elites / puppets of the elites) have a vested interest in)
It is easily demonstrated to be so. CO2 is an utter non starter as a driver of global climate. That is the point of the cannonball thought experiment, and it's "naked" version.
My description of what a thermal image of a greenhouse actually shows also demonstrates that the GH effect IS totally imaginary.
CO2 is a radiatively able gas, it can cool itself by emitting a photon. So, it can cool itself quicker than a gas that can only cool by conduction alone. "GH gases" cool the atmosphere, not warm it, AND, increased concentrations of "GH gases" within the atmosphere can only INCREASE the atmosphere's ability to cool itself......
We have been told, by the "higher authorities" just about everything (deliberately) the almost exact wrong way round.
"Unfortunately" there is no greenhouse effect, that is the reality. The "GH effect" however is presently deeply ingrained in most people's minds and thinking because of what they have been taught and had endlessly repeated to them by a compliant and biased (read bought) media. I think getting that across in a couple of pages is a rather large task....But, I think I can explain some of the bits (as I understand them) of the bigger ("consensus science" mostly) picture as such.
The politics / business / burocracy / elites sides of things I leave to others, but try to remain somewhat aware / upto date with. As far as politics goes, I do not believe (any longer - I used to) there is any such thing as "right" or "left" anyway, they all have the same (elite) puppet masters.
Ian Macrae Yeates said:
In a while there will be a federal election. Tony Abbott is dealing with a multitude of issues. He needs to have ideas reduced to a page or two. Are you saying that water is the main element in warming/cooling processes? That 'carbon' pollution is a furphy?
I have been involved in some continuing discussions related to the subject areas covered in part 2 of the Xmas pdf this thread is to discuss. In these discussions I recently wrote the following,
" Radiation, conduction and latent heat happen BEFORE convection.
In point of actual FACT conduction and latent heat CAUSE convection.
Without convection both reduce and would effectively stop (diffusion ONLY), but
that does not mean convection is anything other than a (positive) catalyst to more conduction and latent heat losses. "
I think this is so important I have redone my naked cooling cannonball thought experiment, as is attached in pdf form to this post.
It will be of interest to see if anyone can prove I am wrong in my observation that convection happens AFTER heat loss. This is a big issue when you consider it's implications. The most obvious one to me being that the "accepted" way you are supposed to think about it at present makes radiation THE most important, and latent heat the least important form of heat transfer. That is in direct contradiction of what we can observe. Why?
Greenhouse Effect "theory", Anthrpogenic Global Warming, computer climate modeling, all radiation is positively absorbed, etc, etc, etc, are all based upon this misrepresentation of reality.
Yet, is convection merely a postive catalyst, or a process by which heat is removed from an object?
BECAUSE it happens AFTER, then there is only one answer. Yes, it is a positive catalyst, and the present "paradigm" of radiation, conduction and convection is disproven. Disproven by the best of the first principles of science, which is what we can observe everyday, everywhere, repeatably.
Some may find the title of the pdf a little too "strong", but that seems to me to be the best description of what I see is occurring, and has been occurring for too many years to count.
Don't forget we were once all supposed to believe the earth is flat.
AGW, and GH "theory" are no different, BECAUSE they start off with the unphysical P/4 starting point.
I decided to change my avatar to a picture of myself, and my rescue rottweiler Belle. Wish I'd had a shave though..LOL.
As a follow on from the above 3 forms of heat transfer (which should be heat loss...ooops) I have been trying some home experiments to illustrate the cooling power of the latent heat losses of water vapourisation.
I think they are pretty conclusive, and anyone can repeat them for themselves.
I have added a powerpoint to this post of some of the plots that I have been getting.
Please see this post at the GWS forum, from post 23 onwards (although you may want to read the whole thread).
I have also recently started a fb group named There is no greenhouse effect.
I hope people have a look at the group, particularly the about page, and then join.
The group is an open group, anyone can join. If it gets enough members, who knows, maybe the greenhouse effect "theory" itself may be openly questioned. Plainly the "theory" is not openly questioned at present, so many do not know of, or realise, the importance of P/4. We have wasted too much time already just querying and quibbling how the "theory" and our supposed effect upon it has been applied and modelled, ie AGW, without FIRST questioning the "theory" as presently taught. How unscientific is that.