Methane Video Provokes Thoughtful Discussion

February 8, 2019

torches

Some of the kinder things that have been directed at me, and the scientists interviewed in the most recent This is Not Cool video.

Frozen Earth:

Several high–profile voices from David Attenborough and Stephen Hawking to scientists and world leaders have stated in recent years that Climate Change is the defining or most important issue of our time. Yale University shouldn’t be so surprised to also find human beings connected to the Internet who share this view.

Peter Sinclair’s video on YouTube was a cleverly crafted propaganda video, in which scientific authority and language was abused in order to give human beings connected to the Internet the impression that ice couldn’t melt because it requires heat.

Yale shouldn’t take it upon themselves to spread Darkness and Lies, so should praise any and all information campaigns about these very important issues instead of trying to quell them.

Peter Sinclair voluntarily made his monthly YouTube video that short, likely because he wanted to convey a simple, propagandistic message about Arctic methane: Nothing To See Here, Move Along! He wanted to “Keep It Simple, Stupid” for political propaganda effect, not out of respect for the scientific matter at hand. His narrative shows an almost crying female student who used to believe Arctic methane meltdown was kinda dangerous, but who now understands that the danger was “overblown”, because #endothermic. Because ice simply can’t melt on planet Earth because melting would require heat. It’s so stupid.

You should study the peer–reviewed scientific literature. I dunno, go on the Internet or something, to find that info.

Video Comment thread:

Overly positive thinking pompous asses.

THIS IS PURE PROPAGANDA MIND GAMES.

Hansen is delusional it seems.

VERY VERY VERY BIG PROBLEM METHANE IS A BIG BOMB , every day coming 200.000 new polluters to this planet. Nobody will stop this and oil is used more and more. So take your health insurance cards, possessions, money, credit cards, language skills, diplomas and fancy titles. In 10 till 12 years you can burn it with the rest of this planet.

This video screams ammature college theater project.

We are doomed and there is nothing we can do about it.

Why misinform people? What do you plan to gain? Credibility? Time is the ultimate truthsayer. Time will prove YaleClimateConnections to be the liars they are.

Sorry but it is out of our hands, there is nothing that we can do now to stop catastrophic change to our climate.

The atmosphere is many times larger than the oceans.

People have no idea how close we are to the end, thousands of scientists know about this.

We have passed the balance point and are now on the downward spiral to destruction. There is no stopping it.

totally  apocaloptimistic.    Runaway global warming is in progress.   The climate change we are experiencing is anthropogenic, extreme, lethal, accelerating and irreversible.   Slowing down emmissions will not slow down rapid global over-heating.   We are doomed and there is nothing we can do about it.

Twitter machine:

132 Responses to “Methane Video Provokes Thoughtful Discussion”

  1. A Thorpe Says:

    How to fool yourself with nonsense. “The atmosphere is many times larger than the oceans” – only somebody who has no knowledge of thermodynamics can write that. Thermodynamics is about mass and specific heat. Compare the density and specific heat of water and air to discover the truth. Or try an experiment at home. Heat an oven to 200C and pour water at say 80C into a jug. Now put one hand in each. Thermodynamics is not about size or just temperature. Warnning – do not try that at home unless you believe humans are responsible for global warming.

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      Well, that is ridiculous because my oven heats in Fahrenheit, not Celcius. Checkmate!

      • A Thorpe Says:

        That sums up the pathetic level of discussion and lack of understanding, unless you were trying to be amusing, in which case you also failed.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          No guffaws, but I did I smile a bit at at GB’s little joke. On the other hand, the “pathetic level of discussion and lack of understanding” displayed in YOUR comment is not very amusing and begs for a response,

          “The atmosphere is many times larger than the oceans” – “only somebody who has no knowledge of thermodynamics can write that”, you say? Actually, it’s more an English language error, the use of “larger” being the problem, and has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

          I will attempt some humor in commenting on your half-assed “oven and jug experiment”. I’m sure GB and others will get it. Here goes:

          Warnnnning – unless your “hand” is as small at the Pretend President’s, you’ll never get it the neck of a “jug”—–come up with a better experiment.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            As I said thermodynamics is all about thermal energy. The point of the home experiment was to show that air contains little energy compared to water. The sun heats the oceans and land mass and they heat the atmosphere, and once the heat has been transferred to the atmoshere it cannot return to cause further warming. Anybody who believes that could become a billionaire overnight, but nobody has. That is because the laws of physics work and climate fraud does not.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            So, AThorpe, perhaps it is me, or perhaps it is the way you write, but if I understand you correctly – you are saying that the ideas of the Greenhouse effect and global warming are a fraud?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Fraud suggests that somebody planned this, so no. The climate warmers are not that clever, just stupid. They only get away with it because the media and politicians have taken up the call and they are the stupidest of the lot.

  2. Gingerbaker Says:

    So Peter, are you enjoying being a tool of big oil? There must be some outrageous payments, and other benefits. Private jets? Polynesian dancing girls? Your own polo team? Hot and cold running Cristal?

  3. doldrom Says:

    As Yeats put it: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” And his observation predates the internet cranking this up to the to the ³²power.

  4. redskylite Says:

    There is absolutely no denying that mean temperatures are rising steadily, NOAA, NASA, Japanese Meteorological Agency and many other independent sources confirm, without doubt. There is no plausible explanation for the speed of the temperature rise, other than the increased green house gas effect caused by mankind’s exploitation of buried fossils, that traps heat and prevents escape back into space. There is also no denying that melting permafrost and methane clathrates vulnerability is on every respectable science chart of climate tipping points.

    The sudden “methane bomb” idea appears not to be a great imminent risk – but the tipping points are very real and there is still grave danger, if we continue business as usual.

    And it seems that our great oil institutions intend to go on doing that, regardless of the death and misery that is becoming all so regular now. Has all the sights of corpses from two very recent world wars, made us immune from sympathy now?

    There is a glimmer of hope and it is sparked by the younger generation.

    The truth about big oil and climate change.

    Demand for oil is rising and the energy industry, in America and globally, is planning multi-trillion-dollar investments to satisfy it. No firm embodies this strategy better than ExxonMobil, the giant that rivals admire and green activists love to hate. As our briefing explains, it plans to pump 25% more oil and gas in 2025 than in 2017. If the rest of the industry pursues even modest growth, the consequence for the climate could be disastrous.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/09/the-truth-about-big-oil-and-climate-change?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20newsletter

    • redskylite Says:

      UK pupils to join global strike over climate change crisis

      The school climate strikes that have led to tens of thousands of young people taking to the streets around the world over recent months are poised to arrive in the UK next Friday.

      Thousands of pupils are expected to walk out of lessons at schools and colleges across the country amid growing concern about the escalating climate crisis.

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/08/global-school-strikes-over-climate-change-head-to-the-uk

      • A Thorpe Says:

        Before you start listening to children I suggest you read “Lord of the Flies”.

        • redskylite Says:

          And I suggest you start reading about Physics the most fundamental of scientific disciplines. Especially the part about greenhouse gas molecule behaviour, in the atmosphere. Also the work done by the USAF in the 1950’s on developing heat seeking missiles and the need to take into account green house gas properties. You could look at a few official charts like temperature and CO2 to see the smoking gun. The thing of great comfort to me is that children of the world are mostly getting proper education in these matters in modern times, and blind people like you will be gone when they can start taking the urgent action needed. For god’s sake take some much needed education man.

        • redskylite Says:

          Here’s a starter for you from the U.S. Geological Survey: Contains some guidelines for simple experimentation, which do not involve putting your hand in hot ovens.

          . . .

          Long wave radiation emanating from Earth’s surface causes molecules of a specific size and structure to vibrate. The greenhouse gases are of the right molecular size and structure for this to occur. This vibration or resonance allows the molecules of these gases to heat up.

          Secondary School (depth of interpretation and analyses of results can be adjusted accordingly.)

          Clear plastic water bottles with hole drilled into cap (recommend one bottle for every 3 students). The bottles should all be the same type, have clear plastic sides (remove any labels), and all be approximately 20 ounces in size.Thermometers (analogue, digital or digital recording; one for each bottle).VinegarBaking PowderMethane Gas (from laboratory gas jet)Light source (clamp lamp or goose neck) and bulb (standard incandescent or directed spot; one setup for each bottle)

          https://education.usgs.gov/lessons/gases.pdf

          • dumboldguy Says:

            An excellent lesson, and one Athopr could likely understand and do it (with adult supervision).

            This is important.

            “NOTE: as natural gas can be ignited by a flame, extreme care should be
            taken to keep any lighted material away from the gas jet and bottle. Only the
            teacher should fill the bottles with methane, and only the closed bottle
            should be given to the student”.

            A student was killed in my high school by a physics experiment gone bad, and we had a number of small fires and explosions in chemistry classes. In a college general chem class, one of the future chemistry teachers blew up an H2S generator, spraying glass all over the lab.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You really don’t have a clue about physics. I’ve seen the experiments and done them. Firstly, you have no control to ensure that the energy entering and leaving the bottle is the same in both cases which is critical to the result. But consider the physics. It is quite easy to do the calculation. The temperature change of a given substance when a quanity of thermal energy is added is simply the energy divided by the mass multiplied by the specific heat. If the same amount of energy is added to the same mass of air and carbon dioxide then because the specific heat of carbon dioxide is lower than air its temperature will increase more. You are a load of fools who understand nothing. Heat is not being trapped by some magical property of CO2.

            I saw an experiment conducted by Iain Stewart using a candle, a thermal camera and a tube of CO2, supposedly to show the heat trapping characteristics of CO2 which was presented as an update of Tyndall’s work. Here is a YouTube link https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw. It was nothing more than a magic trick and unfortunately for Stewart the experiment was created for him by Johnathan Hare of Sussex University in Brighton. Hare made the mistake of putting a document on the internet describing how it was done. You might know that thermal cameras can be set up to detect CO2 leaks in industrial plant and that was the type of camera used so immediately it detected the CO2 and Stewart claimed it was trapped heat.

            I also saw an experiment on BBC TV by a chemist Andrea Sella from UCL. he did a similar experiment usung powerful lamp and gun cotton which was set alight by the heat from the lamp. When a tube of CO2 was put in the way the gun cotton did not light, Salla claimed this was because the CO2 trapped heat. There is no video of this that I can find. The trick was that Salla had to use a magnifying glass to concentrate the light. Without it the gun cotton would not have ignited with air or CO2. It did not ignite with CO2 because the CO2 scatters the light and the magnifying glass could not concentrate it. Trickery everywhere for those like you who have no understanding of science.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “You really don’t have a clue about physics. I’ve seen the experiments and done them”, says Athrepo as he struts around the barnyard in his new Demented Rooster suit spouting more yada-yada-yada. Done them where?—still waiting to hear about your schooling AT—-so far it seems to be from Wiki and Youtube—-have you ever taken an actual science course?

            I’ve taught both high school physics and biology (have degrees in each) and find it ever so indicative of your Dunning-Kruger that you would find fault with an experiment put forth by the USGS as part of its efforts to help science teachers. The government spent a lot of effort and $$$ on improving science education back in the post-Sputnik days—-PSSC Physics, CHEMstudy, BSCS biology texts, lab manuals, and supplementary AV materials—-terrific stuff, and I used them in both physics and biology classes. (And got an all-expenses-paid vacation with my wife one summer taking a Genetics course at CSU in Fort Collins—-the NDEA was a gold mine for science teachers).

            But of course, you know better, and want to natter on about “control”. FYI, this experiment is not designed to get absolute values to be published somewhere, but is meant to demonstrate a PRINCIPLE in a relative comparison, and it does that well.

            I am reminded of a lab we did in the BSCS “Special Materials” course, which was intended for slower than average students. The students breathed bubbles into a standard acid-base indicator solution and timed how long it took to turn acidic after they had been sitting, walking, or running in the hallways (which they loved—I had to alert the school that we’d be doing it on a given day and that it was OK to run). The point was to demonstrate how more food was “burned” at higher activity levels, and that could be measured by how much CO2 was produced. Worked great, and the students themselves brought up the idea of “control”, since they were of different sizes and weights, and walked and ran at different speeds. Great learning experience.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            So dumboldguy you taught physics. It explains why the younger generation leave school with no ability to think rationally and having been brainwashed into believing what the state wants them to believe. Governments don’t like people who can think for themselves, and neither do you.

            You cannot illustrate a principle in an experiment unless the experiment accurately models the principle. Your thinking is bad science. As I explained in the example of glass jars and CO2 subjected to heating – all it demonstrates is how the specific heat of a substance determines the final temperature. It does not show that heat is trapped. If heat was trapped then the temperature would not reduce when the heat source is removed. You do not have a clue what heat actually is, as demonstrated by your insults about Wikipedia. It is not always a good source of information but it does generally get basic facts correct. It is odd that you think this way about it because if you look up global warming it will tell you that heat is trapped by CO2 but you don’t think that is wrong.

            Pointless, inconsistent, incorrect, meaningless are the descriptions that apply to your comments. If you want me to really say goodbye then stop responding with your nonsense.

            I do not belong on WUWT or anywhere. I look at these site to see what people are thinking. I get my information from published scientific papers.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            ZZZZZzzzzzz…(fart)…zzzz (burp)…ZZZZZZZZZ!!!

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Remember the old adage dumbo – those tha can, do; those that can’t, teach. You are proof of its accuracy.

        • redskylite Says:

          Can a blanket violate the second law of thermodynamics?

          One of the silliest arguments of climate deniers goes like this: the atmosphere with its greenhouse gases cannot warm the Earth’s surface, because it is colder than the surface. But heat always flows from warm to cold and never vice versa, as stated in the second law of thermodynamics.

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

      • redskylite Says:

        “The science of the greenhouse effect thus is not some new discovery but has a long history compared to such “recent” science as relativity (Albert Einstein, 1905) or quantum mechanics (Max Planck, 1900). The pioneers who explored radiation in climate science were giants of physics, chemistry, and mathematics, who saw the strong interactions between laboratory studies and application to the atmosphere.

        Much of the work on the details of the interaction between radiation and gases in the air was done by the US Air Force just after World War II and applied to topics such as sensors on heat-seeking missiles, as told in the introduction to this chapter. A missile uses a sensor to “see” the infrared radiation from a hot engine, but greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapor block the view in some wavelengths by absorbing that radiation. Because the gases interact with radiation traveling in any direction, and there is much more energy in those wavelengths going up from the sun-warmed Earth than coming down from military bombers, the warming influence of the greenhouse gases is unavoidable.”

        https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/node/1258

    • A Thorpe Says:

      I became interested in that claim that humans are causing the earth the warm when I read the claim that heat is being trapped in the atmosphere. It is bullshit and I knew there was no truth in the claim. Heat, by definition, is the transfer of thermal energy from a high to a low temperature. It cannot be trapped. Heat and time are quite similar, we talk about the flow of both. They only “flow” in one direction; they can be slowed but never reversed. Water flow is much the same. It only flows downhill because of gravity. There are situations in a large system like the climate where it seems that parts of the atmosphere are at the same temperature but there is still heat flow elsewhere and at a molecular level heat transfer does not stop. If you really believe that heat can be “reused” then tell us how we can trap the heat lost from our homes and return it to save using more energy. It cannot be done. Your belief in this is the scientific equivalent to believing the earth is flat.
      You might know about the lapse rate which defines the change in temperature from the surface through the troposphere and it shows a linear decrease. It has been used by the aviation industry for decades and is fully described by the American Standard Atmosphere. Because heat only transfers from hot to cold it follows that the cold atmosphere does not cause heating of the surface. This also explains why the earth’s surface temperature is higher than the global warmers say it should be. Look at the equations; they are not difficult to understand. They show that gravity compressing the atmosphere is why the surface temperature is higher. There is no component in the equation that supports the claim that carbon dioxide is heating the surface. The same equation applies on Venus. It is not the carbon dioxide that is responsible for the high surface temperature on Venus, it is gravity compressing the dense atmosphere.
      You say heat is trapped in the atmosphere. If this is true, then what is the mechanism for doing this and what is the mechanism for causing it to be released and return to the earth’s surface? The truth is that the atmosphere absorbs heat and emits it, but it cannot travel back to the source of the heat, which is the surface. The surface is only heat by the sun. This belief of trapped heats seems to originate from experiments carried particularly by Tyndall. He used a tube containing gases and passed infrared radiation into the tube at one end. When it did not all appear at the other, he believed it was trapped. As I explained above heat cannot be trapped. He failed to realise that radiation was being absorbed and emitted and some was therefore returning back down the tube and some was being lost through the walls of the tube. He did not measure the temperature inside the tube to prove his point. This nonsense continues today in people who want deceive people for political purposes.
      Science has nothing to do with age. The young will have less understanding than the old. But it is true to say that burning carbon fuels causes pollution and is it causing health problems. However, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Lord love a duck, WTF, and JFC ten times over!

        Sounds like we have yet another climate change “hobbyist” here in A Thorpe. You know, one of those folks who knew little science until he retired and started “studying” bullshit on the internet? Now he’s an “expert” and is maundering along displaying his ignorance for all. This comment may take the prize for arrogant and ignorant spouting of total bullshit by someone who knows NO science and has difficulties using the English language as well.

        We have better things to do than argue with a coprolite, but if anyone wants to go farther, here are some of the most egregious examples of BS in AT’s comment:

        “I read the claim that heat is being trapped in the atmosphere. It is bullshit and I knew there was no truth in the claim. It cannot be trapped.

        “Heat and time are quite similar, we talk about the flow of both….they can be slowed but never reversed.

        “… the cold atmosphere does not cause heating of the surface. This also explains why the earth’s surface temperature is higher than the global warmers say it should be.

        “It is not the carbon dioxide that is responsible for the high surface temperature on Venus, it is gravity compressing the dense atmosphere.

        “However, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.”

        • A Thorpe Says:

          Quite wrong of course both in your assumptions about my background and in your knowledge of science. All you and people like you do is repeat what I said but with no scientifc evidence to demonstrate why you think it is wrong. This is because you don’t have any ability to put a rational case together to support your beliefs.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Tell us about your “background”, AT. In what science fields do you hold degrees? What organizations do you belong to or support? When exactly was it that you “became interested in that claim that humans are causing the earth the (sic) warm”?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You ask me that, but at least I give my name rather than claiming to be dumb. None of us have to justify replying on these forums. It is what we have to say that matters and you prove repeatedly that you have nothing to say.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Thank you for proving my point that you’re a dilettante, a poseur, and a bullshit artist. We should believe “A Thorpe” is your name just because you say so? Look up “A Thorpe” in the urban dictionary. And what does it matter anyway if that’s a real name or not?

            “None of us have to justify replying on these forums. It is what we have to say that matters”

            More bullshit—-ignorant OPINIONS about things scientific DO require justification. Just SAYING them is meaningless. Anyone who has visited Crock over the years knows that I have had PLENTY to say, and the knowledge and experience base to back it up.

            Put up or shut up, “swimmer”—-YOU are the one who apparently (and repeatedly) has nothing to say.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            You also don’t appreciate my wicked good sense of humor.
            That’s usually a pretty good sign right there that something is deeply amiss in the old noggin.

            It really is quite amazing how many flavors climate science deniers come in. You did better than most – you wrote hundreds of words so slippery in their intent and interpretation that it took us a bit longer than on average to recognize the pathology of your thought process.

            Well done! Too bad there is no prize – perhaps we can use Patreon to endow an annual fund for a Grand Denier of the Year Award?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Well “dumboldhguy you are certainly have a good skill in copy and paste and also repeating the same idea that I put to you. As you finally conclude there is no point in quoting degrees because there is no way of knowing whether the information is correct. You do not know whether I have given my correct name. But I certainly know that you and others do not want to give your name. Imagine the shame of people knowing about the nonsense you write and your inability to form a case against my opinions, which are those in all physics textbooks. As for the idea that there is any sense of humour in your posts Gingerbaker is sadly deluded. Are you German by any chance?

            If dumboldguy you are so well informed then, as a new comer, tell me briefly what your know. Heat cannot be trapped – a fact – but you say it can. Tell me how I can do that in my house. You cannot. Can you come up with an experiment to show how carbon dioxide increases the temperature. All the experiments we see with glass jars are not in a controlled situation and have no validity. Even with 100% CO2 they still only claim a 2 degree rise in temperature so how does a fraction of a percent in the atmosphere manage to have such an effect. Don’t tell me it is positive feedback. If heat can be amplified I ask again to tell me how I can do that in my home. There are 6 billion people on earth who would like to reduce their energy bills so the sooner you come up with a solution the happier they will be.

            Is there a committee considering every post on this site? I note that you refer to “us” and still you have not even the briefest of killer scientific evidence to quote.

            I am beginning to appreciate how Galileo felt when questioned by the Catholic Church. No wonder he said “Who would set a limit to the mind of man? Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?”. You certainly do and it seems to be what is in your mind. Galileo was talking about scientific debate, something you and your pals no nothing about.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Lord love a duck again! Athorp is now comparing himself to GALILEO? ROTFLMAO!

            Time to measure him for his “Demented Rooster” suit and give him his first “Award of the Perfumed Sleeve Hanky”. Since he is an admitted “newcomer” (English lesson—newcomer is the correct term (synonymous with alien, intruder, interloper, novice, rookie, and greenhorn), I will explain for his benefit.

            I introduced the Demented Rooster suit years ago on Crock—-it is worn by those who emulate “the demented rooster strutting around the barnyard crowing about his imagined victories”. The Perfumed Sleeve Hanky is also something I introduced some time ago. It is awarded to those arrogant anal orifices who sit on their high horse of ignorance and “sniff” at those of us who are their intellectual betters. The perfume helps to ensure that they remain ignorant of how much their own “stuff” stinks.

            Is there a committee considering every post on this site? I note that you refer to “us”….

            Yes, newcomer, there IS a committee of long term Crock visitors who “consider” posts. So far, you have attracted the attention of only Gingerbaker and I, but if you keep up your stream of bullshit, others will likely chip in (although you are so boring that they may not). Expect someone to accuse you of being a Dunning-Kruger sufferer, and a classic one at that.

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          “I am beginning to appreciate how Galileo felt when questioned by the Catholic Church”

          Why stop at Galileo? Surely you share kindred association with Abraham Lincoln in your brave actions against the slavery of climate warming nonsense. And your selfless philosophy of sacrifice for the common good can only be compared to the trials of Gandhi, or – dare we say it – Jesus Christ himself.

          Don’t sell yourself short!

          In fact, all the world deserves the benefits of your razor sharp acumen and keen scientific understanding. Aim high, young Thorpe, aim high! The Nobel Prize beckons. All you have to do is publish, man, publish!! The editors of Nature are awaiting your submission. Hasten with quill and inkpot!

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Are you getting off on this? But more excellent cut and paste work but you missed the key part out on scientific debate, always misquoting to promote nonsense. Your comments are not even close to my views. I assume you are telling me about yourself. Perhaps as self-appointed guardian of this website you have to prove to your followers that you can defend your ridiculous beliefs. It is a pity you were not around 450,000 years ago. You could have studied the many ice ages come and go in solitary isolation wondering how it could have happened with only you to do it.

            The real issue here is that people like you support research into the CO2 rubbish when it should be going into real science. We cannot control the climate but we need to understand why it is changing so that we can adapt.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I can speak for myself (and probably GB) and say YES, we ARE getting off on this. We DO enjoy watching deniers and Dunning-Kruger sufferers like you make fools of themselves.

            You have yet again spouted such BS, that the only proper response is….WHAT?

            That will be recognized by oldtimers on Crock as the proper response to your Omnologos-like gibberish.

            Why don’t you go over to WUWT and post there instead?—-you will feel quire at home there.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            What sad old guys you are. It’s Saturday night and I’m off to party. Enjoy playing with yourselves.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            LOL—He PARTIES! I wonder if he does that alone or with others? And he gets VICIOUS with his not-so-clever ripostes if you push him. Dang, the last time somebody told me to go play with myself must have been 60 years ago.

            That’s nowhere near as insulting as “people like you support research into the CO2 rubbish when it should be going into real science”. Now THAT hurt.

            PS Athrop has been warded the ultimate badge of stupidity on Crock. My phantom down-thumbers have started giving him thumbs up (or he’s giving them to himself). WOOF to all from DOG!

      • greenman3610 Says:

        inform the National Academy. we have a new Nobelist in physics.

        • A Thorpe Says:

          I’m not going to search through physics textbooks and do a cut a paste job which this site seems to favour because you still would not accept it. But I don’t have to because Wikipedia has done it for me. Try reading it. It defines heat as I defined it. It says it only transfers from hot to cold which I said. These are the established laws of thermodynamics. Hence it follows that heat also cannot be trapped. The thermal energy in some part of a system can increase or decrease, and this must be consistent with the law if conservation of energy. But the energy is still not trapped. You really have no understanding of basic science which is shown by your use of sarcasm to respond. Unfortunately there is no Nobel prize for sarcasm and stupidity.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Our boy Arthope not only par-tays on Saturday nights, he whines and pouts! LOL

            “I’m not going to search through physics textbooks and do a cut a paste job which this site seems to favour because you still would not accept it”, he whines.

            Really? WE (the committee) would accept an attempt to show some real science a lot faster than your half-assed opinions, which seem to be based not on any scientific training but on what you’ve come across in your “hobby” of “getting interested in climate change” at one point.

            Wikipedia? Try looking up “sarcasm” in Wiki to see why it’s being employed against you. It’s because WE have decided that you’re a Dunning-Kruger sufferer (have you looked that up yet?) and hopeless and useless as a commenter on Crock. But DO keep coming around—-you’re the best “birdie” we’ have right now and we’re enjoying smacking you back and forth over the net.

            “It says it only transfers from hot to cold which I said. Hence it follows that heat also cannot be trapped. The thermal energy in some part of a system can increase or decrease, and this must be consistent with the law if conservation of energy. But the energy is still not trapped”.

            Really? Perhaps Aprothe should stop looking at Wiki and get a copy of Logic for Dummies. Aside from the language fail of using the word ‘trapped”, there must be SOME reason why the overall temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans is increasing. Where does that heat come from?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You really should listen to yourselves. You have not the slightest understanding of basic physics. You suggested I might look at WUWT, which I have of course done, many times. Perhaps if instead of reading something that challenges your thinking if you looked at the number of comments on WUWT you would reslise that hardly anybody bothers to comment on your site. That should tell you that nobody is interested, and no wonder considering your pointless responses. You site is pathetic because it is impossible to keep comments in a thread and so debate cannot be followed. Goodbye but thanks for proving that warmers are idiots.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “Goodbye but thanks for proving that warmers are idiots”.

            Have we succeeded? Is he really gone, never to return? (To WUWT, his real home, as was suspected) OOO-Rah and Semper Fi! Can we now get back to having half-way intelligent discussions?

            Did he leave a forwarding address so that we can send him his Nobel Prize when it arrives?

  5. dumboldguy Says:

    As an aside while talking about methane. the fracking and natural gas industries are hurting a bit:

    https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/02/07/north-america-natural-gas-fracking-financial-crisis-investors?utm_source=dsb%20newsletter


  6. […] I spoke yesterday to Michael Mann of Penn State U – one of the world’s pre-imminent atmospheric experts. Our conversation was wide ranging, but I asked him about the widespread panic that exists in the internet fever swamps about an imminent arctic “methane bomb”. In the last week since I produced a video that portrayed the best science on the issue, it’s clear that to question the “game over man” meme on methane is to kick a hornet’s nest online.   […]

  7. Paul Whyte Says:

    The information in the video is well short of everything one needs to know to decide how big a threat and when the very large high altitude methane stores are mobilised if we don’t know the pathway the planet is on in the coming decades.

    If we knew that the carbon industries would enter a terminal stockmarket value collapse at about 2025 our prospects are very different than if devotion to the old way continues on to the next few generations.

    It is clear that we are headed on a path to where the methane feedback could be larger than the CO2 effect from global warming if we don’t curtail human carbon. That would be a major threat to life bigger than bacterial.

    Alternately we might be able to get sense to prevail and have a rapidly rising price on carbon returned to the population and allow economic free choice have carbon pollution actually priced at the cost of the harm it is doing. Where we are all given that carbon price and then able to chose lower-cost sustainable energy or higher cost carbon energy.

    What is missing is if or when we can get the control levers of our cultures out of the hands of the fossil fuel lobby and their supplicant politicians and followers.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Well said, but please don’t pick on the bacteria—-they, along with all the other little critters that are hardly visible, are far more important to life on Earth then the big guys you see in zoos.

      And particularly for humans:

      “The human body contains trillions of microorganisms — outnumbering human cells by 10 to 1. Thar means humans are 90% microbial but only 10% human. Because of their small size, however, microorganisms make up only about 1 to 3 percent of the body’s mass (in a 200-pound adult, that’s 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria),

      And here’s one factoid you can use to win bets at the corner bar: “There is a greater diversity of bacteria living on the human forearm than on any other part of the body, according to a new study. On average, 44 different types of bacteria reside on the forearm, compared with 19 species living behind the ear”, says the study by the National Human Genome Research Institute in the US.

    • Paul Whyte Says:

      bugger spellcheker mangle, sorry — Latitude not altitude.

      Oh and there is a very simple demonstration of the greenhouse effect from CO2 and other gasses.

      At night when the Earth is radiating into space rocks full of silica and even more materials with carbide are known to cool faster than organic materials since the reflection back to Earth of the IR frequencies that the organics radiate are very much higher than the frequencies that silica and carbide radiate which are able to pass through a window of low greenhouse gas absorption. So the cooling is blocked for organics and water containing materials and the cooling of silica and carbide is not.

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.201500360

      And by the way, being mean to the fossil fuel supplicants does not help their jammed mental cogs to start turning. Just saying.

      If we are every able to get the planet off carbon, the friends of the fossils will have the rest of their lives to bask in the humiliation of their “new science” that never was. Perhaps we need a society for Troll deflating.

      • A Thorpe Says:

        There is a very simple observation we can all make which proves that the greenhouse effect does not exist. If there is frosty morning with sunshine. The energy from the sun comes from one direction but the supposed “back radiation” from the greenhouse gases comes from every direction. Look at the shadows cast by the sun, for example, where is shines through railings or at the bottom of hedges. The sun melts the frost but the back radiation has no effect at all. This is because it does not exist. Heat cannot transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.

        The mistake made is to wrongly believe that all IR from involves transferring thermal energy. It only transfers thermal energy when it is from a hot body to a cold body. The second law of thermodynamics always applies. IR travels as a coherent wave. When it is absorbed by a body is becomes incoherent vibrations of the atoms. Planck explained what this involves and it is related to the energy of the IR and the in the absorbing body. The easiest way is to think of energy states in a body slowly filling up. If the energy state is already occupied then if the incoming energy is lower or the same it has no effect and it is emitted as coherent IR. If the absorbed IR has a higher energy then it is absorbed and it increases the temperature.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Didn’t you say goodbye less than an hour ago? Why are you back? Go to WUWT where you belong!

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          ” Look at the shadows cast by the sun, for example, where is shines through railings or at the bottom of hedges. The sun melts the frost but the back radiation has no effect at all. This is because it does not exist. Heat cannot transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.”

          I stand corrected. In one terse explanation you have utterly destroyed the life work of tens of thousands of climate scientists and physicists. Why did we not see this before?? Were we blind?!?

          Your own apposition of yourself with Galileo, I now see, should not have been mocked, it should be applauded. For you, just as Galileo in his role as artist, simply see the world with eyes that see things that lesser mortals can not. That IS the soul of art. (And the death of climate science.)

          And once seen, this image of the railing shadow on frosted grass – can not be unseen. It has been etched upon my retinas forever, as a revelation, the Platonic Form of ideal truth. Magnificent in its Beauty.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            I felt invigorated by the eloquence of your image of frost shadows, so I hunted down a photograph you can use when you educate climate scientists and open their eyes to the bald truth right in front of them, a truth they can not, or perhaps do not want to see.

            Please, please, please forgive the “Cut and Paste” technique I used? Thanks! 🙂 :

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Good find, GB. Although TorpehA has shown NO evidence that he can actually cut and paste anything other than his inane opinions (in spite of talking about cut and paste incessantly)—-so he may not be able to use it. And instead of thanking you, the flaming anal orifice instead rewards you with more gibberish. How ungrateful!

            And the statement “Your image and comments seem to show that you only believe that the greenhouse effect only works in summer and not in winter!” is so reminiscent of Omnologos’s comments (that can only be answered by a “WHAT?”) that I’m beginning to believe that Omno has snuck his nose back under the tent under a new name. Are you back, Omno?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You are still blind and of course I have not destroyed the work of thousands that you follow. I am celebrating the few who discovered the laws of physics, the laws you ignore in favour of the pseudo science of the AGW brigade.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Your image and comments seem to show that you only believe that the greenhouse effect only works in summer and not in winter!


        • Fascinating. Why is the difference between the daily and night time temperature greater when the humidity is lower?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Air is more humid when the temperature is higher. It is a simple as that. If you follow the global warming alarmists they will tell you that the increase in humidity is causing additional warming. It is nonsense. The sun warms the earth and only the sun. If there is more warming then there has to be another source of energy. It is just like your house. If it is cold you have to put more energy in to get it warmer and that means using more fuel. Insulation will not increase the temperature. Insulation only slows down the heat loss. Insulate a house without any heating system an it will not get any warmer. The warmists do not understand that. They often say that the atmosphere insulates the earth and keeps it warmer. It doesn’t. Without the atmosphere the earth would experience much higher and much lower surface temperatures. The atmosphere distributes air around giving us more even temperatures.

            I don’t know what the point of your question was. There is always a difference between the day and the night temperatures because there is no sun at night. We feel warmer when it is humid because we cannot keep cool by sweating. Just as we cannot keep as warm when it is windy. It is not backradiation from the atmosphere on humid nights because the atmosphere is colder and heat cannot travel from cold to hot. There is radiation but it does not cause warming, just as the radiation from an iceberg does not warm us.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            Yo Galileo!!

            Water vapor as ( the most important) greenhouse gas:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

            You might want to take note, AThorpe – the water vapor – just like CO2 – is re-radiating IR from the Earth surface back down to the air and the Earth surface.

            =>Re<= radiation. (It's a clue you missed something important).

          • A Thorpe Says:

            And what you will not accept are the laws of thermodynamics. Heat cannot transfer from a cold atmosphere to a warm surface. I explained what Planck discovered about radiation. Radiation is only thermalised when it travels from a hot a cold body. It is so fundamental and yet you continue to deny all the know laws and replace them with nonsense. Heat once absorbed cannot leave and return to cause more warming. Some people claim that heat can return and the put mirrors in front of lights in experiments and convince themselves it is true. You are all completely insane.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            We are all completely insane. In his advanced D-K state, Toprahe now thinks he can diagnose our mental state? LOL

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            How does the energy of the sun pass through the 8 million miles of -400 space – that is COLD, and then warm up the Earth, then?

            It’s IR radiation in space, then the atmosphere, which is also freezing cold.

            => This is not convection. This is not conduction. <= This is radiation.

            I hate to break this to you, Galileo, but you have a mental block. And you don't understand thermodynamics better than my cat.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            How many times do I have to explain this to you? EMR from the sun travels through space as a coherent wave. It contains energy, as does all EMR. When the EMR arrives at the earth some is absorbed in the atmosphere, some is also said to be reflected. The EMR that arrives at the surface and is absorbed by the surface becomes incoherent vibration of molecules and that is what we observe as temperature.

            The laws of thermodynamics are vital to the understanding of this process and they applies to radiation, conduction and convention because the laws about all forms of thermal energy and work. The first law is about conservation of energy. The climate warmists ignore this law and interpret it as points of thermal balance or an energy budget. This is not the same at all. As a result the model the atmosphere in layers and they say there is a thermal equilibrium at each boundary. This assumption is not correct since it does not comply with the first law. This assumption results in the creation of extra energy from nowhere, which is seen in the diagrams often credited to Kiehl & Trenberth. It is a simple matter to identify that the is more energy circulating round than is available. Hence the fabled back radiation. Your cat is certainly not able to work this put and apparently neither are you.

            The second law is more complex since it is about entropy which is a mystery to most people. But the law has been interpreted as relating to the direction of flow of thermal energy. I have repeated this many times. It means that heat can only flow from hot to cold and the process is not reversible. So heat travels from the sun to the earth and since the sun is much hotter than the earth the earth absorbs the heat. All substances emit EMR and this includes ice bergs. So ask your cat to explain how EMR from an ice berg can cause something warmer than itself to heat up. Your cat does know because it sits in front of the fire and not the refrigerator.

            I explained to you that Planck discovered how radiative energy is absorbed and may or may not be thermalized depending on the direction of travel. Only EMR from a hot body heats a colder body.

  8. Gingerbaker Says:

    ” As for the idea that there is any sense of humour in your posts Gingerbaker is sadly deluded. Are you German by any chance?”

    What gave away my German heritage – my lack of a sense of humor, or my sad delusion? Please explain? Really need to keep my German roots a secret and would definitely appreciate your advice.

  9. dumboldguy Says:

    You are such an impotent asshole, ThropeA! Quoting “old adages” in an effort to insult me? LMAO! In addition to your fractured science knowledge, you have no sense of humor, sarcasm, or irony, and absolutely no talent at insulting. Maybe you should follow the adage and become a teacher of insulting, since you’re not able to DO it very well?

    “Remember the old adage dumbo – those tha can, do; those that can’t, teach. You are proof of its accuracy”.

    “Sigh”, another old adage is “once a teacher, always a teacher”, so let me correct your use of the language—-what’s a “tha”?.

    By the way, if you had ever been in education, you’d know that the “old adage” can be extended one step further—–“Those that can’t teach, administrate!” After teaching for 8 years (and being a science department chair and winning one “Biology Teacher of the Year” award), I finished my career in education with 23 years as an administrator. Hired many teachers (and fired a few)—-you wouldn’t have been allowed to be a substitute in one of my schools even in the middle of an epidemic.


  10. The Hockey Schtick blog is a good source for Thorpe’s interpretation of physics.

    • A Thorpe Says:

      You keep telling me that I am wrong but all I have done is quote the established laws of thermodynamics. I studied physics. I don’t need any blogs! All you and the crowd on this site do is criticise but I have yet to read any of your views on physics. Why is that?

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        All your physiks belong to you.

        • A Thorpe Says:

          You get more ridiculous with every reply. My physics is from text books. You still have to reveal where yours comes from. So far there is no indication that you know any. Come on surely you can tell me how heat travels from cold to hot.


      • As one former physics student to another, let’s take it one step at a time – which will eventually drill down into thermodynamics.

        Are you saying that increasing the concentration of GHGs (gasses in the atmosphere which absorb and emit IR) does not cause an energy imbalance until the planet’s average surface temperature increases enough to achieve equilibrium?

        • A Thorpe Says:

          There is no such thing as an energy imbalance. The law of conservation of energy always applies. I have no idea what you mean by an energy imbalance and equilibriums. As I have said elsewhere that concept is wrong and it creates energy from nowhere. Look at the Trenberth and Kiehl energy balance diagrams and the energy balance points created at the surface and the outer atmospher only balance because there is energy circulating in the atmosphere that has come from nowhere. The law of conservation of energy has been ignored.


          • You’re joking, right?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            No. The climate models all assume there is a balance of energy at the boundary of the atmosphere averaged over a year. This cannot be correct. There has to be a difference one way or the other. The total energy in the earth’s system has to increase if the climate is warming or decrease if it is cooling. The models can only work if the energy from the sun is an input and the output is the energy lost to space. The model has to calculate the energy stored. That is what conservation of energy is about.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            No, he is NOT joking.

            That is the beauty of it!

            Sheer unadulterated stubborn aggressive cluelessness of a humorless purity that makes it exquisitely rare.

            He glistens with it.

            He radiates it.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            And yor contribution as always is negative. Just insult after insult because you have not the slightest understanding of physics. If you had all you have to do is explain why you think I an wrong, but you cannot. Get back to stroking your pussy!


          • The average temperature is increasing because there is a difference one way. Layers are a computational approximation used in models – which are adding layers as computing power increases. As the parts per volume of CO2 increases at all altitudes, the mean free path of radiation between more densely packed molecules decreases which force the average emissions into space from higher and colder molecules. Equilibrium will occur when the temperature increases the average energy of those emissions. T**4, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, is the primary mitigating feedback.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Now you are talking about the atmosphere. It is the average temperature of the earth’s surface that is said to be warming. The greenhouse effect is specifically defined as heat bring trapped in the atmosphere, and of course the main greenhouse gas by far is water vapour not CO2, and that the heat emitted returns to the surface causing further warming. Heat cannot transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface and heat cannot be recycled. The greenhouse effect is fundamentally wrong. Try to focus on the basic concept.

            You cannot determine what is happening in a complex system by describing what is happening to just radiation and discussion of mean free paths. Densely packed molecules of CO2? Now you are having joke. Do you have any idea how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere? All the atmospheric gases are emitting radiation. Do you think the nitrogen and oxygen have no heat content? How you think they lose heat into space? It is the entire system that matters. What equilibrium are you talking about. There is no such thing as a temperature equilibrium because temperature is an intensive variable not related to the size of the system. There can only be conservation of energy of the entire system.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            “I studied physics. …My physics is from text books. ”

            You ever get graded on physics? In, like, a real accredited school? By someone with an actual advanced degree in physics from an accredited school??

            I’d ask more, but my German pussy needs stroking.


          • OK. Let’s say that CO2 is increasingly less sparsely packed. However, there’s enough of it that the forcing from the increasing concentration is logarithmic. Methane is so sparse that the radiative forcing as a function of its concentration is linear.

            You said, “of course the main greenhouse gas by far is water vapour not CO2, and that the heat emitted returns to the surface causing further warming” Busted. You have a British cat (vapour), and you understand more than you claim.

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          OK, I’m going to give it the old college try. Here is a science question for you, At.

          You have a digital infrared thermometer which you heat in your kitchen oven to 120F. You take it out, and point it at your German cat which is 15 feet away. The IR thermometer, which is still 118F, says the cat is 103F.

          How is this possible when the cat is colder than the thermometer? What is the IR thermometer measuring?

          Extra credit:

          The Sun bathes Earth with lots of wavelengths of EMR. Visible light, UV light, IR light. 70% of the sun’s energy makes it into the atmosphere and some all the way to the oceans and land. Some of that light gets reflected back toward space.

          Some of that reflected light interacts with atmospheric gases. They vibrate faster, which means they have gotten warmer. They also radiate some of that heat as IR radiation incoherently, which means in all directions. A lot of those directions are back toward the Earth.
          What happens to that redirected re-radiated IR that is headed to Earth? Remember, these are energetic photons, now, identical to some of the photons in native sunlight.

          Native sunlight also hits molecules in the atmosphere and the oceans and the land. These molecules vibrate faster, which means they are heating up. They also are radiating heat as IR radiation, and some of that radiation goes straight up in the atmosphere without hitting anything, and dissipates away into space.

          But some of these IR photons, from molecules in the atmosphere, oceans, and the land also hit molecules in the atmosphere, which vibrate and re-radiate IR back the the ground.

          Do you actually think that molecules emitting IR radiation toward the Earth can not heat molecules with that radiation just exactly the same way that sunlight IR photons do?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Why don’t you ask me why your IR thermometer does not measure the temperature of the air between it and the cat? Why don’t you ask me why it can measure the temperature of your hand but if you put your hand behind glass it will not measure it?

            Next you go on to repeat what I have told you about EMR from the sun. You are correct about the radiation from the earth’s surface causing the atmosphere to warm and the reason is that the surface of the earth is warmer than the atmosphere. Heat ONLY transfer from hot to cold. The atmospheric gases emit IR, not as an incoherent wave as you say but as a coherent wave. You are also correct to say that the radiation is emitted in all directions and some will come back to the earth’s surface. But is where it all goes wrong and your last paragraph is utter rubbish. I have told you to look up the work of Max Planck. He explained what happens when two bodies at different temperatures radiate towards each other. The second law of thermodynamics must always apply even to radiation and so radiation from the cold body does not heat the warmer body. The atmosphere does not warm the surface because it would violate the second law. Planck explains that the radiation from the cold body is absorbed by the hotter body as but it does not have enough energy to move the electrons to a higher energy state so they are emitted as IR and there is no increase in temperature. The second law is not violated.

            So, no credits for you today. But you can earn a credit if you can explain the K&T energy balance diagrams. It has 161W/m2 of energy arriving at the earth’s surface and 396W/m2 of radiative energy leaving. This is not possible at the surface temperature of the earth. It has 333W/m2 of backradiation from the atmosphere when the radiation from the sun is about the same 341w/m2. Where does all this circulating energy come from? Please explain because I would like to know how I can apply it in my house. I’ll explain it again for you. The model of the atmosphere in layer is based on the assumption that heat can travel from cold to hot as you do here. It is also effectively a flat earth model with each layer radiating the same amount of energy up and down. The down energy does not exist as Planck explains and this is where all the energy in the K&T diagrams comes from. The energy does not exist and the greenhouse effect does not exist. Now explain where Nobel prize winner Planck gets it all wrong.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            Well, you can’t say I didn’t try.

            Thorpe, I noticed you didn’t respond to my question about whether you actually took physics in an accredited school.So, again, what is your accredited scientific background?

            You need to go back to those textbooks you claim you read, and see if you can get it into your thick wooly head that radiation is different from convection and conduction. Hot things radiate IR light which does NOT need to transfer energy by conduction or convection. Relative temperature means little here. And before you start shouting about Planck, see the final link I provide.The Greenhouse effect is NOT about trapping heat, as you put it. The Greenhouse effect is:

            “a process by which outgoing terrestrial radiation is absorbed by atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, and is re-radiated in all directions. ”

            And, no that does NOT contradict the 2nd Law. see links.

            “Why don’t you ask me why it can measure the temperature of your hand but if you put your hand behind glass it will not measure it?”

            Because most glass is opaque to most, but not all, IR radiation. Sigh.

            Which is why a greenhouse in winter is warmer than the outside air. It is transparent to visible light coming in, but blocks most IR going out. Much like the Earth’s atmosphere! Which, indeed, is why the Greenhouse effect is called the Greenhouse effect. Because some of the outgoing terrestrial IR radiation is blocked and re-radiated back to Earth, causing the Earth to be warmer than if there was no atmosphere.

            => => => This back radiation *has been measured for over 50 years*. You can read about this radiation, which follows Kirchhoff’s Law here:

            https://skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory-intermediate.htm

            So guess what, Thorpe? The many tens of thousands of scientists are not wrong. They are just more careful than you. More importantly, they question themselves and their assumptions, especially when confronted by contradictory evidence or when their opinion is contrary to consensus.

            You, on the other hand, just bull ahead with nonsense and disrespect. I daresay I am not the first person to tell you this.

            If you really want to dive into the deep end, you can follow this series of posts which go in depth about why the Greenhouse effect does NOT contradict the 2nd Law, or Planck or anything else:

            http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/rabett-is-fisky-as-part-of-rabett-runs.html

          • A Thorpe Says:

            The issue of qualifications and names was discussed above and it was accepted that there was no point in asking because there would be no proof that the information was correct.

            I have no idea why you ask about IR thermometers and I notice you avoided the more difficult question of why they do not measure air temperature.

            I can accept your definition of the greenhouse effect but even NASA talks about heat being trapped: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/user-resources/sensing-our-planet/missing-heat

            You are also wrong about greenhouses. Prof RW Wood proved this in 1909 in experiments and this was confirmed more recently by Prof Nasif Nahle. But I imagine you will want me to supply you with their academic qualifications. The reference you gave also does not agree with you. It says real greenhouses work by preventing convective losses.

            Consensus has no relevance in science, it is about evidence and if you believe the second law applies then you have to provide the evidence. Just measuring radiation proved nothing. You have to prove that the radiation from the atmosphere heats the surface and there is not a single measurement that has done this. I gave you evidence of a frosty morning which is evidence that there is no heat coming from the atmosphere. I can only keep repeating that you need to look at the work of Planck (another expert who you will want qualifications for) and he showed how radiation between two bodies of different temperatures happens when they are each absorbing radiation from each other. The colder body heats up by radiation from the hotter body. The radiation from the cold body is absorbed by the hot body and emitted. The second law applies. Radiation from the atmosphere is from a cold body and it does not heat the surface. Nobody has performed an experiment with a block of ice and shown that the IR radiation from it causes warming of a body at a higher temperature. Have you got a reference for such a process because that is what you believe. Some people quote heat pumps as evidence that heat transfers from cold to hot, but it is not true. The two heat transfer processes in a heat pump are both from hot to cold.

            If your references are the best you can do there isn’t much hope. Where is there a physics text book that shows radiation from a cold body can transfer heat to a warmer body. Where are the text books that you read that tell you this. Titles and quotes and then I will listen to you.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Here is a link to heat transfer. https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/p670/textbook/Chap_4.pdf

            It is producecd by Ohio State University. Read the section on radiation. It only transfers between hot and cold. The second law applies to all forms of heat transfer without exception. You obviously do not agree since it means your greenhouse theory is wong. Write to the university and ask for their qualifications and tell them they are wrong. Let me know what they say. It might be my alma mater.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            So you want to know why your reference is wrong. “The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.” Where does this come from? You don’t seem to understand that we are talking about energy and there is avlaw of conservation of energy. So explain where all the extra energyncomes from. I’ve aked you before in relation to the K&T energy balance diagrams but you have no answer. A statement without justification means nothing.

            “The net flow of radiant heat is still upwards from the surface to the atmosphere, because the upwards thermal emission is greater than the downwards atmospheric backradiation.” If this is true then the net heat flow is upwards, in other words cooling. But the heat loss is not only radiation it is mainly convection together with evaporation.

            There is nothing in this document to say that the atmosphere is warming the earth’s surface. It says the net flow is up. But you will not accept that heat from radiation is due to the absorbed radiation being sufficient to excite the atoms to a higher energy state. This is where the second law comes into it and it applies to radiation. Radiation from a cold body cannot excite the atoms in a warmer body.

            You claimed greenhouses trap IR, and this reference says it blocks convection. Neither are correct, it is the physical barrier that stops mixing. Your reference is school boy nonsense.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: