Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What is the theory of man made global warming?
#1
What is the theory of man made global warming?

The short answer to that seemingly simple question is that it is a scam. The biggest, most complex, and most successful, deliberate scam so far in human history.

The take home messages that will be explained are -

1) The difference between a physical law (which is merely a prediction) and a law of thermodynamics (which is a material fact).
- A so called physical law is a simple and elegant, but unphysically calculated prediction. THAT is not a law at all. Such "physical laws", ie, P/4, Black Body, Stefan Boltzman and Wien's law, are merely predictions, whilst the Laws of thermodynamics actually ARE laws that always apply, and thus can be stated as simple facts. ie, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is the fact that colder (or the same) can not heat (the same or) warmer.

2) In reality energy can not be created, therefore in reality there CAN NOT be a greenhouse effect or "theory".
- The GH "theory" in any of the versions, or interpretations currently in use (heat flow, energy flow, or fluxes), HAS TO create energy for there to be a "working in reality theory" in the first place. Which invalidates the "theory".

3) Climate science has to start any explanation of how earth's climate system works from a physical basis.
- Climate science will have to (in the end) move from the current unphysical basis, based upon "physical laws" to a physical basis based upon and in accord with the known laws (of thermodynamics) and properties of physical matter (such as heat capacity), from which to study earth's climate system from. Predictions of the result are not explanations of how the result was achieved.

An introduction to the presentation.

The old saying that "The complicated webs we weave when we try to deceive" is appropriate, in that, for many hearing that AGW is a scam is simply not enough for them to accept it is "just" a scam. With that in mind the presentation is intended to explain, as simply as possible, step by step, and point by point, how the (politically correct, politically funded, and for political purposes) scam is a (pseudo science) scam. Hopefully virtually anyone taking the time to read through the presentation will understand that AGW is, and know how AGW is a pseudo science scam.

Although many people know that AGW, Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (man made climate change, climate change, climate chaos, climate disruption, whatever it is being called this week, or by some other different name next week), is a scam, that understanding only begins to hint at the scale of the (global) deception, the downright deliberate (pseudo science) lies, being knowingly forced upon us (by politicians and bureaucrats mostly via the main stream media [MSM] outlets, and by many others with vested interests in the scam too, those in education and government funded "scientists", companies with so called "green" products, etc, etc, etc.). The why, by whom, and with what purpose in mind is the scam being used for, the attached presentation will not go into in any great depth. The belief in AGW is to all intents and purposes a cancer that has infected almost all of human society. "Save the planet" is the feel good mantra with which the scam has been sold to us, without it being stated that to "save the planet" (from a, as hypothesized, none existent problem) "we" will have to pay the price of a one world government (via the United Nations Agenda 21). Whether that is just another lunatic "conspiracy theory" the reader can decide for themselves. The presentation will examine in some detail the "theory" that AGW fears are based upon, and how that "theory" has been presented to us.

Like most people I first became aware of AGW fears in the early 1990s via the MSM. I entered into various discussions, on various blogs and forums on the subject (very naively and innocently as a geographer), that being my educational background, or rather specialty. It soon became apparent to me that the problem of earth's climate system had been "resolved" with the use of maths and physics, which as a geographer I would have to learn to a far greater depth than I had done, or had needed to do previously. It may be that my "new eyes" to the physics and maths used to "resolve" the problem of what is earth's climate system doing, how does it work, lead me to a very different understanding of how the system works overall. I realised quite quickly that something was seriously, and very seriously amiss with the whole of the accepted science referred to as "climatology", but what? That puzzled me for many years. Is the paradigm the science of "climatology" is using wrong? Surely not!

Alan Siddons in about 2007 noticed a pdf I had written in regards of my concerns and criticisms of the Global Energy Budgets. He then contacted me and invited me into a group that discussed these issues and others by email. It soon became apparent to me that this group where discussing what they considered to be a fact that there is no greenhouse effect! It is simply not possible, the "theory" itself is unphysical. Alan referred to what he called "greenhouse land physics"! I was way, way out of my depth, and I knew it. BUT, "climatology" perplexed me, I wanted to understand better. Over the course of several years, and many, many hundreds if not thousands of emails I begun to understand better.

What did I learn mostly from my involvement with the Slayers group, as that group Alan had invited me into had become known as? The very same group that John O'Sullivan later used as the impetus to form Principia Scientific International from. Very basic physics mostly, is the rather surprising answer. It was an amazing journey of discovery for this geographer, in the company of Alan Siddons, Hans Schreuder, Nasif Nahle, Joseph Postma, Oliver Manuel, Martin Hertzberg, to name just some of the Slayers involved in those amazing email discussions.

BUT, something was missing. The Slayers and their very basic criticisms (because of the Laws of thermodynamics, particularly the 2nd Law of thermodynamics) of Greenhouse effect "theory" were ignored, dismissed, and ostracized. What is the "something" that helps to explain where the "greenhouse land physics" had come from? How could so many have been taken in by such a simple scam? What is the basis that the false paradigm of the current accepted (modeled) science of "climatology" is built upon? Although because of my involvement with the Slayers I knew there is no greenhouse effect, how to explain current "climatology" is using a false paradigm and is therefore a pseudo science, a science that looks like a science but it is NOT a science, it is imaginary? The "something" has so far eluded me, and many others.

Remembering I entered into the subject area as a geographer, who then realised he had to brush up on his basic physics knowledge I took particular attention to a facebook post linking to a series of lectures given by one of America's most famous and respected physicists, Professor Richard Feynman, back in 1964. I did not worry that the lectures were so old. They were as good a place as any to "revise", to go over afresh my physics knowledge, mostly gained from the Slayers, and in particular from Alan Siddons, Nasif Nahle, and Joseph Postma. I started with the best of intentions, I was going to listen to the series of lectures, to see what I could glean from them.
http://io9.com/watch-a-series-of-seven-b...-f-5894600

So far I have not got past the first lecture, and in particular the first 15 or so minutes of the first lecture.




In those first few minutes Professor Feynman explained something. I would suggest it is the "something" that has been missing so far in the discussions of the currently accepted pseudo science usually referred to as "climatology". What he said is the motivation that, for my own peace of mind, meant I had to produce the presentation. It is in short the basis, the logical foundation, of the presentation.
He said -
"I am more interested in the marvel of nature who can obey such a simple and elegant law...and how clever she is to pay attention to it."
Richard Feynman 1964.

I think it very deliberate that Professor Feynman chose the Law of Gravity as his first lecture, and that before he explained that, he first explained the character of physical laws. No one knows what gravity is, other than it is a force. A force of attraction, yes, but how? By what? We simply do not know. This is THE POINT he was making, we can predict, using an unphysical calculation that which we do not understand HOW it is done. We, have worked out a simple and elegant calculation, using unphysical assumptions that seems to accurately predict what happens in nature, what happens in actual thermodynamic reality (ATR), BUT we do not understand the HOW. The "physical law" is NOT a law, it is "merely" a prediction of the answer nature must reach by physical means in ATR.

I am not sure why so many seem to have missed what Professor Feynman was saying. It is very basic physics, that all physics should be done in the knowledge of and having taken into account. Physical laws are not laws at all, they are merely unphysically calculated predictions. The Laws of thermodynamics however are Laws, statements of fact, that always apply in ATR. Professor Feynman, to my understanding, was also saying that reality, ATR, is so complex, so interrelated, so dynamic, "we" will probably never be able to explain it in all it's physical processes and relationships. That, certainly would seem to be true of earth's climate system.

I shall try to put it another way, using an analogy, that may help others also understand what, I think, he was trying to communicate.

The Pie Making Machine Operative analogy.
An operator in a pie making factory works at a machine. He or she knows that they have to supply the raw materials at the appropriate rate for the machine to run properly. The amount of dough for the pie bases, and the amount of dough for the pie lids, and the type and amount of filling for the pies (once the pies are made they are passed onto another operative, for baking). The operative could simply calculate that in an hour, given the required amounts of dough and pie filling the number of pies the machine will make. He or she could, with a simple and elegant calculation predict the number of pies made over a given period of time.
Does this mean the operative knows HOW the machine works? No.

A "physical law" is the simple and elegant unphysical calculation, such as the operative used, but the machine produces the predicted result physically (in accordance with the Laws of thermodynamics), using those raw inputs. HOW the machine does this is very very involved, complex, and beyond the comprehension of the simple and elegant calculation the operative used to predict what the machine would produce with.

Why is this so important? AGW is how we are supposed to be affecting the (supposed) greenhouse effect. The Greenhouse effect "theory" is a black body, and therefore Stefan Boltzman Law, or rather equation, and Wien's Law too based (supposed) explanation of ATR. Black body, the Stefan Boltzman law, and Wien's laws are physical laws, they are NOT the Laws of thermodynamics.

How can a combination, however clever, of unphysically calculated, simple and elegant mere predictions (physical laws) explain ATR? It, they, can not. THAT is why, at the most basic physical level greenhouse effect "theory" fails in ATR. It simply can not explain ATR, BECAUSE it is a combination of physical laws and therefore it is an unphysical "theory". Which is, in any real sense whatsoever, no theory at all. Simply, there is not, there never has been, and there never could be a unphysical greenhouse effect, or "theory", as the current pseudo science of "climatology" is based upon.

It will probably be obvious to most casual observers that the scam that is AGW is so big, so all encompassing, that so many are utterly dependent upon, "they" will not, and actually can not, admit it is wrong, it is false, and it is a deliberate lie. So, it has to be explained as simply as possible, in a way most can understand, how such a massive scam was constructed and presented to us. That is no easy task. I doubt this presentation will manage to make more than a few understand better, but it has to be attempted.

The presentation is not complete, and probably never will be. But, I hope it is simple enough and clear enough for some to understand better a subject that is incredibly complicated, interrelated, and dynamic, namely earth's climate system, and the current "explanation" which is also a incredibly complicated, interrelated, and dynamic deliberately constructed set of unphysical lies with which to scam us.

If just a few realise climate science has to move on from it's current unphysical basis,
[Image: Slide111_zpsojdry7tz.jpg]
to an actual physical basis, I would suggest the following,
[Image: Slide116_zpsptkgmxpd.jpg]
then, in the end, because in the end, the truth WILL out, so much the better for all.

I have attached the presentation to this post as a pdf, although it is probably better viewed as a Microsoft powerpoint presentation, or as a MS pp slideshow, that are also attached.

Below is a link to the first slide in a public photobucket folder which has the presentation as a series of jpegs, that can also be viewed as a slideshow.
http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...sort=4&o=0


Attached Files
.pdf   Introduction_to_V8_pp_What_is_AGW_theory_Derek_Alker.pdf (Size: 204.54 KB / Downloads: 199)
.pdf   V8_What_is_man_made_global_warming_theory_pdf_Derek_Alker.pdf (Size: 1.77 MB / Downloads: 212)
.pptx   V8_What_is_man_made_global_warming_theory_Derek_Alker.pptx (Size: 1.69 MB / Downloads: 189)
.ppsx   V8_What_is_man_made_global_warming_theory_Derek_Alker.ppsx (Size: 1.69 MB / Downloads: 210)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#2
It's very simple.

If C is the temperature of the planet and K is the temperature after homogenisation. Then the expected warming is K/T where T is the average time to retirement of the climate academics.

If C0 is the amount of CO2, then they just know that

K/t = Co x F, where F is fudge factor.

But that also means that F = K/t / Co.

So putting back we have

K/t = C0 x K/t (+other factors that are too complex for the public).

This therefore proves that there are positive feedbacks and that we are definitely going to see runaway warming sometime after they all retire.
Reply
#3
Hi All,
No reaction to the introduction or the presentation from virtually anyone, anywhere!
In a way, I am not really surprised.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#4
Hello All,
As far as slide 116 is concerned I will have to make a change to it. At present I can not work out how to. I will try to outline the problem by copy and pasting a comment Judy Ryan made on my facebook timeline recently and my reply to it.

In regards to slides 115 and 116 -
"Judy Ryan That is a great introduction and two beautifully presented simple diagrams for a lay person to understand. Now I've got that far I will view the overheads again.

However the two diagrams shown are in themselves good educational material. We just need to put a link to a suitable IPCC pseudo science diagram for the P4 example. We then illustrate that P2 is meaningful due to the earths solar driven diurnal rhythm. then attack the supposed logic that underpins P4. Or is it convieniently flawed maths.

Need to keep the posters as simple as possible addressing one issue at a time.
"


Derek Alker Thank you Judy Ryan. P/2 is an issue for me, and in that respect I will have to change the diagram you refer to.

Thinking aloud as such, I prefer the earlier water planet slide (114) because it does not include P/2, which is a divorced from the physics of reality average. The inputs to earth's surface will have to be dealt with in a physical way, because P/2 does not allow for an equator, or the poles, it just makes everywhere "mid latitudes"...

I think Joseph Postma's models approach to solar input received at earth's surface is the correct one (but I suspect it is not allowing for increasing oceanic surface reflection, with increased latitude), however difficult it may be to explain.

Then there are geothermal inputs (currently dismissed as insignificant), which are obviously different beneath the oceans where the crust is very thin, 5-10kms, but down to zero in places, and under the continents where the crust can be between 35 and 70 kms. There are also direct to the atmosphere geothermal inputs, via the vulcanism we see at earth's surface.

P/4 is deliberately flawed. It is unphysical. It is actually a black body assumption that is used to lower earth's surface temperature due to the sun only, and hence the use of it requires further warming of the surface. The use of P/4 requires, needs, a gh effect of some kind.

P/2 is still a divorced from the physics of reality average. It simply will not do for a physical basis from which to explain earth's climate system from.

But how then to simply explain?
Slide 114 is my best answer to date in my opinion.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#5
I think Joseph Postma has helped my understanding a lot, but I think he made a small error.

I started playing with the equation for determining the temperature of the sphere lit by the sun. Testing the boundary conditions resulted in unreal numbers suggesting a mathematical error. The errror is to include albedo/reflectance to reduce absoprtion but to omit emissivity effect on emission.

So
f -flux
Le - Luminosity of earth (emitted power of earth)
Ae - surface area of earth
alb - albedo of earth = (1-absorptivity of earth)
sbc - stefan boltzman constant
Te - Temperature of earth
Ts - Temperature of sun
Rs - Radius of sun
de - distance to earth from sun
p - projection factor for radiating sphere
emis - emissivityof earth
(roots written as raising to power of inverse fraction)

JP (formula 9 page 11 Understanding the thermodynamic atmosphere effect):
Te=Ts {Rs^2(1-alb)/(de^2*p)}^1/4


Modified:
Te=Ts {Rs^2(abs)/(de^2*p*(emis))}^1/4

Absorptivity = emissivity for a blackbody, so: Te=Ts (Rs^1/2)/(de^1/2*p^1/4)

I posted my correction on Joes's blog, but he has not commented directly to agree or disagree.

I presume absorptivity = emissivity for a greybody at radiative thermal equilibrim. It must by definition. If true, the the temperature of the passively lit sphere is completelyindependent of surface properties. Paint the earth black or paint it white, light it in the sun and the temperature on "average" will be the same.

People claim solar selective surfaces have Absorptivity <> Emissivity. This makes not a lot of physical sense to me from a heat energy perspective. Seems like another example for a perpetual motion machine. The notion that CO2 as an absorbing/emitting gas can behave as a solar selective surface makes even less sense. How can a gas molecule selectively suck up more energy in absoprtion than it is prepared to release in emission? I think this can be easily settled by the very simple experiment measuring the temperature of 2 vastly different spheres (eg shiny mirror and matt black) in space subject to solar radiation and full surface radiation to space. I hypothesise that both will be exactly the same temperature.

I've been wondering if this can be tested using an off axis solar cooker with a hole in the side. Heat a sphere in the sun through the side of the reflector and permit it to radiate to space using the solar reflector in reverse. Not sure of the parameters of sphere size and cooker size to get an eaily measureable result with a thermocouple temperature probe.

It's a simple theory. Simple to test. Nobody appears to have bothered. Nobody can find me an experimental result.
Reply
#6
(04-14-2015, 12:19 AM)blouis79 Wrote: I presume absorptivity = emissivity for a greybody at radiative thermal equilibrim. It must by definition.

Remembering a gray body is merely a black body with albedo (only) added...
Radiative (only) equilibrium is not real, there are other processes always involved at earth's surface.

To be honest I am still trying to understand what you are saying. Please excuse me being slow on the uptake.. I will respond when I think I understand what you are saying.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#7
(04-14-2015, 05:38 AM)Derek Wrote: I will respond when I think I understand what you are saying.

Plain language version:

What heats up faster in the sun, white/shiny or black? - everybody claims to understand that

What cools faster in the shade, white/shiny or black? - most people when they think about it hard would conclude black is a better emitter

So how does one compute the "average" temperature (or perhaps core temperature as a reasonable proxy to think about) of a sphere lit by parallel rays and emitting to zero deg K over its entire surface?

The derived equation from Stefan-Boltzmann and Kirchoff as explained step-by-step by Postma is the usual method.

Playing around with Postma's version, plug in values for albedo of 1 and 0 to test the boundary conditions. The numbers arising look insane. The formula permits reflection stopping absorption but omits a corresponding lack of emission. Hence the correction I made.
Reply
#8
(04-21-2015, 02:47 PM)blouis79 Wrote: What heats up faster in the sun, white/shiny or black? - everybody claims to understand that

What cools faster in the shade, white/shiny or black? - most people when they think about it hard would conclude black is a better emitter

The derived equation from Stefan-Boltzmann and Kirchoff as explained step-by-step by Postma is the usual method.

Playing around with Postma's version, plug in values for albedo of 1 and 0 to test the boundary conditions. The numbers arising look insane. The formula permits reflection stopping absorption but omits a corresponding lack of emission.

Hmmm, in short blouis79 there is a far larger elephant in the room, not mentioned at all above...

It's a very obvious physical elephant too. No one can deny it. In fact, everyone knows it exists, and what it is, AND that it should be taken into account FIRST, yet, at present virtually everyone seems to omit it...

Elsewhere I am fact checking, and developing a line of description. I will post it when I am more certain of the series of pieces / points, and their order, as and when I can.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Another Scientist Dissents against Anthropogenic Global Warming Snowlover123 14 17,182 08-05-2011, 07:09 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)