Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jeff Hutcho on January 12, 2012 at 11:45pm

Hi Derek,

Thanks for the linking and info. I have seen the demonstration before, but didn't bookmark it.

Back radiation is definitely a fallacy.

If using CO2 as the gas that is supposed to radiating back to the earth it's IR source, the gas is not a mirror but would radiate in all directions.

Also the CO2 (gas) that has been heated, will rise due to convection, taking the heat energy with it.

Mind picture - "lots of molecule sized hot air balloons"

Had a rave,

JeffT

Permalink Reply by Derek Alker on January 13, 2012 at 9:09pm

Please see my responses to your posts and Roger's critique.

My comments are in bold and brown within your texts.

yours,

Derek.

John Paul McKerral said:

Derek

Attached is a critique of your article by my friend and below is my response to that critique and below that is his response to my remarks.

Permalink Reply by Derek Alker on January 13, 2012 at 9:19pm

Attached.

Attachments:

• Derek replies to John Paul McKerral and Roger fin..docx, 45 KB

Permalink Reply by Derek Alker on January 27, 2012 at 3:39am

I posted this on this thread

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/showthread.php?tid=1787

at the GWS forum and thought it worth repeating here.

Frankly my dears, I am rather dissapointed...
I must admit I am surprised that there have been no comments anywhere (that I  am aware of) of any note to the pdf. I am surprised because of the "size" of the points I have hopefully explained.

It is probably worth my explaining that the overview of the pdf does not directly explain why the pdf is made up of the two parts that it is. This is because one part to my mind naturally leads into the other part. Part 1 of the pdf tries to describe that water (particularly the latent heat of water vapour) is grossly underestimated. That the importance (and amount) of IR is grossly overestimated (mostly in part 2), and that geothermal inputs are enitrely (and patently incorrectly) ignored and dismissed. Would anyone disagree with these points? Which I feel, and hope that I have shown (understandably) are rather important.

Does no one have an opinion they want to discuss in relation to water (in all it's forms) being THE dominant factor within earth's climate system. It seems obvious to me that this must be, and is, the case yet, that is not what K&T, GH, AGW, the current "accepted" or "consensus" science of climatology describe.

Does no one think that water (both latent heat and change of state) has been grossly under represented?

Does no one have an opinion on whether IR has been over exaggerated?

Does no one think cold or rather lack of energy is transported down within earth's climate system?

Does no one think that earth does have a second, and significant heat source, it's hot core, that is presently incorrectly dismissed and ignored.

I had hoped the pdf had covered the above "areas" understandably, but maybe not, and that is why there are no comments.

If the above points are correct, then  that is the end for the current climatology paradigm, it can not mean anything else, because the base assumptions are shown to be so massively incorrect. Literally the current "IR is dominant" paradim within climatology is the flat earth society reborn. We all know the earth is not flat, and we all know IR is not the dominant factor within earth's climate system.

Privately I have received one criticism of part 1 from a, if not THE, most respected skeptic physicist. But, when I read it through the criticism of the cannonball thought experiment was based upon using W/m2 using the assumed black body amounts of emitted IR for a gray body. This is the reason I put part 2 onto the pdf, because W/m2, black body, and gray body is the key to understanding the present incorrect use of W/m2, and assumed (grossly exaggerated) black body amount of IR emitted.

The depth of the confusion in regards of black and gray bodies at present is so ingrained it will be difficult for others in the future to believe what has actually happened did happen, it will all seem so damned stupid, and obviously incorrect. For example at present there are numerous quotes along the lines that the sun and the earth act like black bodies. Such statements are usually accompanied with plots showing the IR emissions of the sun and earth, and yes they do appear similar to a black body emission curve, for the respective bodies temperatures, BUT, niether the sun or the earth are black bodies. This is an invalid comparison. Why have so many "bought it"? I simply do not know, it is stupid to have accepted something so patently wrong.

 

Let me put it this way, I can travel in my car at 15mph, I can, when pushed, run at 15mph, I can ride a horse at 15mph, I could fly in a helicopter at 15mph, heck I could travel across water in a boat, or on a hovercraft at 15mph.

would I ask my horses vet questions about my horse to try to better understand how the helicopter flies...... No.

Yes, the IR emissions of the sun and the earth look similar to a black body at the respective temperatures IR emissions, BUT for totally different reasons.

The sun and earth are grey bodies, not black bodies, dffering in virtually every respect, therefore such statements are invalid, and grossly misleading comparisons.

I take some heart from the increasing number of downloads of the absorption can not equal emission powerpoint attached to post 1 of this thread. The pp hopefully shows clearly that power is not amount. This is an issue that seems to be very difficult to grasp, and I offer the following to explain my understanding, and may be so some one can point out where I am wrong. If indeed I am wrong, which I do not think I am.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/B/Bl...+Radiation

 The above link is to illustrate that astronomers use the peak frequency of emission of IR by far away stars to measure their temperature. That is not controversial, it is accepted by all. This is because peak frequency of emission is temperature dependent. However, as can be seen on the plot in the link, peak frequency of emission is then plotted with what would be an imaginary black body emission for the corresponding temperature of the peak frequency of emission of the object. In short, peak frequency of emission, equals temperature, temperature using SB Law can be used to determine the power (W/m2) of emission of the object. The power of emission can then be converted into a flow or amount by converting the power in W/m2 into an amount (Watts per second, or Watts). So, we have, peak frequency of emission, then temperature, then power, and finally amount.

Most, if not all, IR meters measure peak frequency of emission. Using SB Law it is assumed that, Peak frequency of IR emission = temperature of object = power of emission of IR by object = amount of IR emitted by object.

In other words, as part 2 of the pdf tried to explain, Peak frequency = Temperature, according to SB Law. Temperature = Power, according to SB Law. Power = Amount, according to SB Law.

ONLY peak frequency is measured, the rest is Black Body (BB) because of Stefan / Boltzman (SB) Law assumptions.

The above is an example of how "we" constantly and mostly unwittingly apply black body across the board to grey bodies, which is, as we actually know, incorrect.

I have tried in the pdf to use a size of the pipe example to explain this issue. No doubt many will say that the "size of the pipe" in W/m2 is a square meter. But that is not mass, and it is mass that emits, or rather mostly from collisions (vibrational state) between mass that emit IR. The amount of mass in a unit area varies greatly depending on the mass (weight in a gravity field) of the substance. Therefore according to SB Law the unit area would emit at the same power, and hence amount REGARDLESS OF THE SUBSTANCE.

Is there a universal "constant" of mass / area / IR emission?????? Nobel peace prize for the person who does invent this (I will not). There is no doubt someone will invent such a "constant", because someoene will have to to save the dying GH, AGW paradigms and the present (BB) use of the W/m2 unit.

 

Mass according to BB and SB L aw currently must be variable (read clever) in knowing how much to emit, a lighter substance per unit area will be emitting far more (per bit of mass) than a denser substance does. How does mass know this???? Would it not make far more sense that the lighter substance emits the right temperature determined, power but a smaller amount of IR per unit area.........

There is also the differing physical abilities of differing types of substances, mass, to emit IR. Most IR is emitted as a result of collisions between mass, but IR is also emitted by changes of chemical links within substances. Such bonds are said to have higher and lower states, ie some radiativly able gases. Such gases are more capable / powerful, in being able to cool themselves, than by conduction alone, because they can also emit IR by changing the chemical link from a higher state to a lower state, whilst emitting a photon (IR).

The differences in mass between reciever and emitter is the key that W/m2 conceals. BB via SB Law assues an amount of mass that reacts to a given change of input. Therefore it assumes an amount, at a power, for a given (but unstated) mass.

The unit must take into account mass emitting per unit area, and the physical abilities of that mass, which the present W/m2 unit does not. This would give an amount, for the temperature determined power of emission of IR.

In short, I think a new SI unit is needed.

Such a new SI unit could be called an "Alker", maybe not, a "DA" nope, that would be a Ducks Arse. A "Derek" maybe? Again no.

think it should be called a "Dedgey".

A Dedgey unit, that might shed some light on the subject...   

Permalink Reply by Ian Macrae Yeates on January 27, 2012 at 6:12am

Hi Derek,

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?

Cheers,

Ian

Permalink Reply by Derek Alker on January 27, 2012 at 9:25pm

Hello Ian,

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.

yours,

Derek.

Ian Macrae Yeates said:

Hi Derek,

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?

Cheers,

Ian

Permalink Reply by Derek Alker on March 26, 2012 at 1:00am

Hello All,

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.

Please see,

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1324.html

Attachments:

• The 3 forms of heat transfer. Derek Alker.pdf, 222 KB
• P divided by 4 THE issue that destroys AGW and GH Derek Alker.pdf, 930 KB

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page