Global warming/climate change

@son_of_bob nice work!

@claudiu I don’t think our wires are crossed at all - or if so not in the way you mean. The point I’m trying to make is that a search strategy that isn’t comprehensive enough and doesn’t specifically look for the effect of conduction and convection on AGW is obviously not going to find evidence for it. It’s not about the relative prestige of your sources.

If you’ve derived your theory (that I linked to in my earlier post) from multiple sources, then at least a few helpful links that I can peruse at my leisure would be good. And ones that specifically talk about the conduction/convection issue. At this stage of life I am quite time poor, but I think I’ll slowly get through it.

Ah okay, I can see that you’ve mentioned this somewhere in the middle of your post. I’ll take a look. Why didn’t you just come out and say so at the start? Would have saved us some time. :slightly_smiling_face:

I mean the calculation is one without an atmosphere being taken into consideration so is truly only evaluating blackbody radiated from the Earth’s surface. This is also an average temperature and not the minimum and maximum.

The effective temperature is the first value in the above table and you can see predictions for other planets such as Mercury and Mars are quite accurate and there is a big discrepancy for Venus and Earth, which leads us to conclude this is due to their atmospheres.

If it was so far removed from reality we wouldn’t have got such close approximations with the other planets. So effective temperature despite crude assumptions is not too bad a starting point.

As the models evolve with a greater number of phenomena considered, a greater number of data points and a greater number of parameters, I guess they will be able to play and strip out certain aspects and see what happens. For example, we could then compare models with just water vapour in the atmosphere with oxygen and nitrogen vs the real state of affairs. Piece by piece we will start to understand the contribution of each type of phenomena to the actual observed temperatures on the Earth.

The problem is we only have the models to compare because we can’t strip the Earth of an atmosphere nor easily and chop and change its atmospheric constituents to see what different outcomes might occur.

There is an aspect in our scientific culture that I also see in other areas such as history, geopolitics and economies where things get oversimplified or certain details misconveyed or excluded, I have seen it happen a lot now and I don’t really know why it happens. It seems we don’t like the reality of the compelxity of situations. For example, like what I said about Oxygen and Nitrogen absorbing and emitting infrared.

Major gases like nitrogen and oxygen, then, do not just radiate heat to the earth below, but the total of this radiation vastly exceeds what minor players like carbon dioxide and water vapor contribute.

They will radiate heat in a much limited frequency range as they are near transparent and not totally transparent as often misconveyed. So, yes their contribution has to be calculated but it is not like for like with the other gases. Their absence of a dipole moment, polyatomic molecular structure considerations do not allow such a wide range of frequencies to be absorbed and emitted.

As I said before there are other chemical and physical complexities regarding the greenhouse gases. Then you have things like spectral overlap of infrared.

Accordingly, any heated gas emits infrared. There’s nothing unique about CO2. Otherwise, substances like nitrogen and oxygen would truly be miracles of physics: Heat 'em as much as you wish, but they’d never radiate in response.

There are aspects different to each molecule based on dipole moments, degrees of freedom, the rotational, vibrational and translational considerations. There are aspects that make certain molecules different so the frequency range absorbed and emitted will not be like for like. Each molecule will have its unique profile for infrared spectroscopy and Raman spectroscopy hence how we can detect their presence on other planets and satellites (as in moons).

At present, until I have seen more mathematical detail on the latest GCM’s I can’t really say what they are or are not modelling, estimating, assuming or excluding.

1 Like

The point I’m making is the +33C calculation really doesn’t include conduction and convection. It is strictly an (unphysical and incorrect) radiative heat transfer calculation. The MIT and Wired links show you how to derive it. They are correct in their derivations (ie it matches the derivations that are at the basis of the greenhouse effect theory).

You will see for yourself :slight_smile:

Note the argument about the +33°C calculation didn’t feature in my post to Solvann that you quoted – a source that goes into that argument is here: Slaying the Sky Dragon - Timothy F. Ball, Alan Siddons, John O'Sullivan, Hans Shreuder - Google Livros . Also Richard posted an article about it recently: Global Warming. .

Cheers,
Claudiu

Hi @son_of_bob ,

I combined my response to both your posts into one post.

Mais non. It is the foundation. Everything is predicated upon the premise of this +33°C baseline effect. It is the edifice upon which it is all built.

For an analogy, it’s like the Ptolemaic model of astronomy. This model is predicated upon the Earth being at the center of the universe with the planets, Sun and other stars rotating around the Earth. One could call the starting-point system of deferent and epicycles the “crude model”:

In the Ptolemaic system, each planet is moved by a system of two spheres: one called its deferent; the other, its epicycle. The deferent is a circle whose center point, called the eccentric and marked in the diagram with an X, is distant from the Earth. The original purpose of the eccentric was to account for the difference in length of the seasons (northern autumn was about five days shorter than spring during this time period) by placing the Earth away from the center of rotation of the rest of the universe. Another sphere, the epicycle, is embedded inside the deferent sphere and is represented by the smaller dotted line to the right. A given planet then moves around the epicycle at the same time the epicycle moves along the path marked by the deferent. These combined movements cause the given planet to move closer to and further away from the Earth at different points in its orbit, and explained the observation that planets slowed down, stopped, and moved backward in retrograde motion, and then again reversed to resume normal, or prograde, motion.

However this system produced observational errors, namely:

Unfortunately, the system that was available in Ptolemy’s time did not quite match observations, even though it was improved over Hipparchus’ system. Most noticeably the size of a planet’s retrograde loop (especially that of Mars) would be smaller, and sometimes larger, than expected, resulting in positional errors of as much as 30 degrees.

The errors were due of course to the system being founded upon a completely invalid premise – that the Earth was in the center of the universe and that the other celestial bodies rotated around the Earth. However, Ptolemy was able to improve the model, that one could say “have come a long way” from the initial model:

To alleviate the problem, Ptolemy developed the equant. The equant was a point near the center of a planet’s orbit which, if you were to stand there and watch, the center of the planet’s epicycle would always appear to move at uniform speed; all other locations would see non-uniform speed, like on the Earth. By using an equant, Ptolemy claimed to keep motion which was uniform and circular, although it departed from the Platonic ideal of uniform circular motion. The resultant system, which eventually came to be widely accepted in the west, seems unwieldy to modern astronomers; each planet required an epicycle revolving on a deferent, offset by an equant which was different for each planet. It predicted various celestial motions, including the beginning and end of retrograde motion, to within a maximum error of 10 degrees, considerably better than without the equant.

And indeed the observational accuracy was better, but… it was just an improvement, an added model complexity onto the initial model. It didn’t fix the fundamental flaw – that the Earth is not in the center of the universe. And further, no improvements on Ptolemy’s model could fix this flaw. The whole model has to be discarded.

And so it is too with the greenhouse effect. It is predicated upon a physically invalid premise – a model which doesn’t include conduction or convection, among other blatantly unphysical assumptions like the Sun being placed twice as far from the Earth as the actual Sun is – with a physically impossible solution - that a heat source (the Earth’s surface) is further heated (+33°C no less) by the heat of an object (the atmosphere) that it itself heated in the first place!

Yes, one could I’m sure add further tweaks such as epicycles and equants were to the Ptolemaic model to get results even better than 10 degrees. But it would never address the fundamental flaw which is the invalid premise.

Also a model is just a model, not proof or evidence of anything.

It should be shocking to anyone that the models used to justify the actions in the name of saving the environment – increased energy costs, banning synthetic fertilizer, etc. – all of which cause great harm to the majority of humans while making a few humans incredibly powerful and wealthy – are “not freely available” to the public being subjected to such measures.


The +33°C calculation is arrived at by a trick of geometry, where it is as if the skin of the perfect sphere (which is itself not so far off from an oblate spheroid) is unwrapped and flattened and then placed twice as far from the Sun as the Earth actually is. This is the mathematical calculation used to arrive at the -18°C, which is used to justify the +33°C degree of the greenhouse effect!

All those versions are based upon this fundamental calculation, though. That is how the magnitude of the greenhouse gases is encoded. All the models are based on it.

What they have done is then taken this calculation and embedded it into more sophisticated models that do incorporate rotation, varying insolation, water, terrain, etc. (all of which were initially absent) – but the potency of the greenhouse effect is literally at the core of it. So it taints the entire rest of the model. Just like the equants didn’t fix the problem with the Ptolemaic system – neither do these more sophisticated models fix the problem with the greenhouse effect theory.

The +33°C calculation does treat it as completely black – without any water either by the way!

The +33°C calculation does.

The actual insolation of the Sun is about 1368 W/m^2. This corresponds to a blackbody temperature of +120.96°C (calculator link).

How do they get the -18°C? Well they observe that the Sun only shines on one hemisphere at a time. More specifically the Sun only shines on a circular cross-section whose radius is the size of the disk – which energy is distributed varyingly across one hemisphere. But they take this circular cross-section of input and assume it is instantly and evenly and constantly radiated out by the whole sphere, which has x4 surface area of the circle. So they divide the 1368 W/m^2 by 4 to get 342 W/m^2. Then they re-equate this outgoing 342 W/m^2 to also be the incoming 342 W/m^2 – which is the figure you see in the energy budgets of incoming solar radiation – 1/4th the power of the actual sun.

This washington.edu course says it explicitly:

We need to multiply the incoming solar energy by the factor 1/4–the ratio of the area of the earth’s disk (pi R2) to the Earth’s surface area (4 pi R2)-- You can think of this as spreading out the incident solar radiation uniformly over the earth’s surface (the night side of the earth as well as the day side) 1370 / 4 = 342.5 watts per square meter.

So they are quadruply-weakened indeed!

They don’t stop there, though. This 342 W/m^2 corresponds to 5.5°C which is only 9.5°C off from the measured average 15°C. How do they go even lower? Their perfidy knows no bounds. Even though this calculation is supposedly the temperature of the Earth without an atmosphere (from the same course link):

This effective temperature of 255 K [(-18.15°C)] is the temperature the Earth’s Surface would have if it didn’t have an atmosphere.

They still factor in the planetary albedo which is the value due in part to the atmosphere!

Then we need to multiply by the factor 0.70, which takes into account the fact that 30% of the incident solar radiation is reflected back to space by clouds, snow and ice, the light colored sands of the deserts, and even just a bit from the daisies.

So to finish the calculation, they then multiply it by the this 0.7 to account for the light reflected away and not absorbed by the atmosphere, and they get 345 * 0.7 = 239.4 W/m^2 . Plug this into the calculator and you have your -18°C.

There are various ways to explain the +33°C gap of course, such as all the blatantly unphysical assumptions they put into deriving the number. But no, they don’t attribute it to that… they attribute it to the greenhouse effect!

Then they assume the greenhouse effect is real, make a model based on it, and “validate” it (i.e. demonstrate that it proves the greenhouse effect is real) by assuming that which they were trying to prove, that it is real! I’m not making this up, here it is from the 1984 paper “Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms” that the seminal 1988 paper which was the basis of the Congressional testimony (full story here):

The temperature increase believed to have occurred in the past 130 years (approximately 0.5°C) is also found to imply a climate sensitivity of 2.5-5°C for doubled C02 (f = 2-4). if (1) the temperature increase is due to the added greenhouse gases , (2) the 1850 C02 abundance was 270 +/- 10 ppm, and (3) the heat perturbation is mixed like a passive tracer in the ocean with vertical mixing coefficient k - 1 cm2 s-1.


This is besides the point which is that in the physical world, on any given point on the planet, it has no sunlight for the night-time (~12 hours), and varying intensity of sunlight for the daytime (the other ~12 hours), peaking in the middle and crescendoing and de-crescendoing around that peak.

The basic premise of the greenhouse effect model does not take this into account!

And you don’t think it having been “simplified in this regard” may introduce some rather significant error into this +33°C they calculate?

Yes, which is an amazingly glaring omission isn’t it?

Yes, exactly. Alan Siddons article that I linked to goes into this very well: The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory - American Thinker .

Basically the model is that the Sun heats the Earth to -18°C. Now this Earth itself, acting as a heat source, heats the atmosphere. Now that atmosphere – having been heated by the Earth – now takes that same heat and uses it to heat the Earth again – by +33°C!

This isn’t how heat works in the physical world. In the physical world, if object A heats another object B, object B doesn’t then make object A warmer than it was initially.

Just stand outside one sunny day and gaze upon the distance. The warmists are saying that the Sun heats the Earth, then the Earth heats the atmosphere (that is colder than the surface) — and then it’s like the colder atmosphere extends a giant tentacle tendril of warmth back down to the Earth (which warmth came from the Earth initially) and uses it to re-heat the Earth!

That’s just not how the physical world operates.


As to:

Yes, but how do you know for example that their definition of “clear sky” isn’t essentially “that which demonstrates what we’re trying to prove”, i.e. any contradictory data point, one that doesn’t show the result, is considered to be ‘noise’ and discarded?

With 99.4% of the data discarded it seems like one really has to give them a lot of faith and credence and trust that they didn’t do this… and what warrants such belief when they are trying to prove the modern-day equivalent of the Ptolemaic astronomical system that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

That’s another criticism separate from what’s been presented here, though @Andrew has mentioned it – how can they be so sure in all their model calculations when they don’t even know how to account for clouds??? Lol. From what I understand, minor cloud variability could well account for whatever observed temperature changes have happened in recent decades. Not that we need an alternate explanation to show that the greenhouse effect is entirely fictitious.

And that’s another thing – what experiments have been done to demonstrate the greenhouse effect is real? The ones that are commonly touted, I have found to be actually fraudulent as they demonstrate something else and then claim that it demonstrates the greenhouse effect. It’s already well-known by now that actual greenhouses don’t work via this effect.

It should be evident from all the above that there is zero reason to think it has any effect on warming at all – other than the fact that so many apparently intelligent and supposedly scrupulous people are pushing the propaganda that it does.

It can be… but to assume this is the case is sort of the weasely way out. It’s just assuming a compromise so that one can appear reasonable to both sides. It’s like confronted with the question of God, instead of seeing for a fact there is no God you throw up your hands and say ‘well maybe, who knows?’. But it doesn’t change the fact.


Except it does in that it accounts for the amount of sunlight the atmosphere reflects… after which point the atmosphere is discarded for the rest of the calculation. It boggles the mind lol.

As the atmosphere is included in the part of the calculation lessening the sunlight and then excluded for anything else it isn’t surprising their calculation would be more incorrect for planets with an atmosphere.

I also observe that Earth’s atmosphere has 100x the pressure of Mars and the Earth has a bigger discrepancy than Mars… and Venus’s pressure is 93x the pressure of Earth and has a bigger discrepancy than the Earth… yet the pressure isn’t taken into account whatsoever in this calculation [Note: referring to the calculation that the greenhouse effect causes +33C of warming].

So how can you conclude it’s due to the trace gas of CO2, and not the entire atmosphere, and due entirely to radiation effects, not conduction and convection, and that the atmospheric pressure has nothing to do with it, just from this calculation?

Well what is it measuring, exactly? The moon’s effective temperature is basically the same as the Earth’s. Yet it’s +120°C during the day and -130°C at night. It would be incorrect in the same way a stopped clock is incorrect (yet right twice a day), to say the moon is “on average” -18°C.

But it’s like the Ptolemaic system, improving the model complexity can never fix the foundational problem. The whole thing must be stripped away.

If you started from a model that takes all these factors into account then there wouldn’t be a gap in calculated vs expected temperature in the first place – and therefore no need to introduce any greenhouse effect.

But a model can never prove anything. So you’re effectively saying we can never prove or disprove the greenhouse effect theory. So it isn’t scientific – it’s not falsifiable. Which is a big problem indeed.

As it’s logically evident that they must have some sort of an effect, isn’t it a glaring omission of research that no one in 4 decades has looked into it?

IF this is true – and it may be – that would mean they [effectively can’t, or only very poorly] cool radiatively. So 99% of the atmosphere, that is heated by the Earth, cannot radiate. And as Earth can only lose energy by radiating it… then these gases would be the perfect insulators, perfect preservers of temperature. And wouldn’t this make them far more effective ‘greenhouse gases’?

As Alan Siddons wrote in the article:

Yet this amounts to a double-whammy. For meteorologists acknowledge that our atmosphere is principally heated by surface contact and convective circulation. Surrounded by the vacuum of space, moreover, the earth can only dissipate this energy by radiation. On one hand, then, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate the thermal energy they acquire, they rob the earth of a means of cooling off – which makes them “greenhouse gases” by definition. On the other hand, though, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do radiate infrared, then they are also “greenhouse gases,” which defeats the premise that only radiation from the infrared-absorbers raises the Earth’s temperature. Either way, therefore, the convoluted theory we’ve been going by is wrong.

So either way it disproves the theory.

Again it doesn’t matter the specifics of the latest GCM’s, it’s like the Ptolemaic system, the foundational premise is wrong.


For me personally, it all came down to this:

Doubt has been a key player for me. It’s made it a lot harder to see what the facts are in this situation. Ultimately I have had to see that the feeling of doubt – and the feeling driven to prove myself wrong of what I already saw the fact of – just reeled me back into the warmist propaganda, repeatedly over and over. Ultimately it added nothing of value and now I see the value of just sticking with what I now know to be factual.

And the wonderful thing about it is that to be saying factual things is to be capable of being proven wrong. Someone just has to show why or how it’s not a fact. From the almost 2 months of research I’ve done on the topic, I haven’t found anything to show that what I’ve written here about the foundational premise of the greenhouse effect is not a fact.

Cheers,
Claudiu

Although it is very interesting what has been published here, if you have really come to the conclusion that you are on to something (and maybe you are!) and your thirst for knowledge is genuine, you should not be content with what you have searched and found: you should expose your ideas to those who have the time, the knowledge and the will to analyze them properly.

It takes less and less time and effort to present ideas in the appropriate media to get feedback (from peer-reviewed scientific journals to specialized websites -but even sites like Quora-) or to directly contact hundreds of experts that were previously inaccessible.

You can be content without doing so, of course, but then those ideas should have for you (and certainly will have for others) an objective value similar to that of a scientist presenting his supposed discoveries or reasoning to the consideration of laymen and being satisfied for not finding flaws.

1 Like

Just to be clear, my conclusion is that Richard is on to something. I just investigated what he wrote and concluded it is all 100% factual and relevant… … just like everything else I have deeply looked into that he wrote so far, lol.

Ahh so now you make a judgement of whether my thirst for knowledge is genuine or not. But what do you base this judgement upon?

But how do you know what I have “searched and found”? I see I initially reached out to Vineeto about this topic around March 8th, and I’ve spent a ton of time looking into it since then. You don’t know the articles I’ve read, the papers I’ve read, the questions and comments I’ve posted on various blogs, the authors of papers that I’ve reached out to, the books I’ve read, the discussions I’ve had with Vineeto on this, etc…

So, your judgment is based on an incorrect assumption that I only looked into it superficially.

But you don’t know that I didn’t do that, you just assumed I didn’t. For example, I posted a question called " Has the atmospheric greenhouse effect actually been experimentally verified?" on the skeptics stackexchange. It got 4 downvotes and is now deleted:

The stated deletion reason is that the question doesn’t challenge a notable claim! As that is patently absurd - AGW is certainly a notable claim - and I even updated the question to specifically address what was obviously implicit – then it’s clear the deletion reason was something else… namely that I was challenging the groupthink. And the response to challenging the groupthink is to get shut down, downvoted, condescended upon, and cancelled. If I had a job in the field I would be fired like Peter Ridd was.

Here are some samplings from the comment section (that I can still view from my account):

Question: […] Further there’s a possible issue of the model having the Sun essentially be a constant diffuse light everywhere, as opposed to a small powerful light source in the sky. To show that this can matter significantly, it will help to understand that you can’t burn paper with moonlight and a magnifying glass. To put it differently, if the Sun is out and the temperature of a patch of ground is 30°C, you could still use magnifying glasses to burn a piece of paper on this patch of ground, because the magnifying glasses can ‘expand’ the ‘small’ image of the sun to look bigger, such as to surround a spot of Earth with the high-intensity sun, thus causing a paper to be able to reach 220°C+ and ignite. […]

Oddthinking: Magnifying glasses don’t “enlarge” the sun.

Which, of course, they do, lol.

Oddthinking: The Sun doesn’t heat the Earth less during “night”.

Amazing.

Oddthinking: No-one expects the toy model, used for teaching, to be accurate - that is a strawman.

He is saying the +33°C calculated by the simple model is not accurate! Yet the IPCC thinks it is accurate enough to base everything upon it…

Oddthinking: I suggest you don’t use the word ‘skeptic’ to describe denialists while you are here.

i.e. name-calling to shut down the conversation.

Oddthinking: But simply pointing to a thermometer in a glasshouse in someone’s garden seems to pretty much wipe out most of those claims.

i.e. pointing to how an actual greenhouse works, which is completely and 100% well-understood that it does not work according to the atmospheric greenhouse effect, but rather by preventing convective cooling.

Oddthinking: I don’t think we should delve too deep into tackling this problem, down at the OP’s level.

i.e. condescension.

Jiminy Cricket: What would constitute an experiment? Presumably you’d want a laboratory large enough for a solar system.

i.e. he is implying it’s not possible to prove the effect with an experiment, i.e it’s not falsifiable.

Dave: [in response to the question title, ‘Has the atmospheric greenhouse effect actually been experimentally verified?’] Yes. youtu.be/ueB3TONpv8Y

i.e. he links to a YouTube video with no control, no demonstration, no laboratory setup, just some jars and a graph, which is reproducing an experiment that fraudulently purports to explain the greenhouse effect when it’s actually a property of the differing thermal conductivity of gases: link to a German site debunking it, and document of the same:

Die falschen KLima Propheten.docx (1.4 MB)

(Try DeepL to translate.)

Mark: I would argue that there is nothing capable of completely settling denialist arguments regarding the second law, or any other issue. Most of the deniers are basing their objections on (often intentionally) misunderstood science, rather than any real questions about physics.

i.e. name-calling and outright dismissing any questions about the standard narrative of global warming as not being “real questions about physics”.

In short, the reception and treatment I got here for asking a genuine question about demonstrating the greenhouse effect, is essentially the same that Richard got in 2006… so nothing much has changed in 17 years.


Here is an example of the state of peer review in climate science: - Bishop Hill blog - More evidence of gatekeeping .

And also: Why Everyone Should Be A Climate Skeptic – haakonsk's blog .

It’s not clear why one would expect a different response individually contacting the “experts” than more of the same of what has been presented above.

Yet I did do so – so your conclusion is invalid:

Further, as you cannot know what others will think, here you are stating that everyone should think what you think – that the value of what I’ve presented here is equivalent to “that of a scientist presenting his supposed discoveries or reasoning to the consideration of laymen and being satisfied for not finding flaws”.

As you wrote that I “should expose your ideas to those who have the time, the knowledge and the will to analyze them properly”, and you are one of the people on the forum that I have exposed my ideas to, you are essentially saying that you yourself do not have “the time, knowledge, and the will to analyze them properly”.

As you have not analyzed my ideas, nor do you think you are capable of or even perhaps want to analyze my ideas, and nor apparently have you submitted them to “hundreds of experts” to have them analyze it for you, in essence you have pre-judged them as wrong, and incorrect, or at the very least essentially valueless, and you haven’t based this judgement on the merits of the ideas at all nor taken any steps to back this judgement up with anything at all (as far as I can tell).

The salient question then, is: what did you base this judgement on?

It appears the solitary thing you based it on is that you presume the “experts” and “peer-reviewed scientific journals” (presumably you would only accept experts that are climate scientists/climatologists and not any of the other various scientists) all would say that the ideas are wrong. In other words, you’re making an appeal to authority.

But if the ideas are correct… then you already know that that very authority would reject them out of hand, because their livelihoods depend on it, e.g.:

WASHINGTON, September 7, 2022The World Bank Group delivered a record $31.7 billion in fiscal year 2022 (FY22) to help countries address climate change. This is a 19% increase from the $26.6 billion all-time high in financing reached in the previous fiscal year.
Climate Finance | $31.7 billion in fiscal year 2022.

( Dave Chappelle gave an excellent personal anecdote relating to this point, see this video between 4:03 to 8:03: Dave Chappelle: Unforgiven | Exposing Comedy Central - YouTube )

Not only that, but these same authorities want to go from billions of funding to trillions of funding! I’m not making this up, here is the Secretary General of the United Nations speaking at the World Economic Forum in 2023:

The battle to keep the 1.5 degree limit alive will be won or lost in this decade. On our watch. […] We must act together to close the emissions gap. […] The developed world must finally deliver on its $100 billion climate finance commitment to support developing countries. […] our climate goals also need the full engagement of the private sector. […] I call on all corporate leaders to act on it. Put forward credible and transparent transition plans on how to achieve net zero […] Finally, what is true about private sector engagement on climate applies across a range of challenges. […] Government action is critical – but it’s not enough. We must find avenues to boost the private sector’s ability to play its full role for good.

In many ways, the private sector is leading. Governments need to create the adequate regulatory and stimulus environment to support it.

And business models and practices must be reworked to advance the Sustainable Development Goals [1]. Without creating the conditions for the massive engagement of the private sector, it will be impossible to move from the billions to trillions needed [emphasis added] to achieve the SDGs.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/davos-2023-special-address-by-antonio-guterres-secretary-general-of-the-united-nations/

Now would these people really accept an idea, no matter how correct, that the very basis of the trillions of funding they desire and may very well get, is totally fictitious? Of course not… you already knew they wouldn’t when you wrote what you did.

So what are we left to do? We can either embrace the peasant mentality and trust the authorities that we’re all in good hands even though they want to reduce the world’s standard of living to back how it was at pre-industrial times…

Or we can come to our senses, critically evaluate using what we know to be facts, and stick to those facts, no matter how many experts or authorities may disagree with them.

Just think… how many psychological and psychiatric experts would say that actual freedom from the human condition is impossible, or actually a medical illness? We all know the answer… 100% of them. How many spiritualists would say that actual freedom is just a poor and incomplete Enlightenment or a delusion or a wrong view? Again we know the answer… 100% of them.

Should we just believe them all and give up and ignore what our PCEs factually tell us?

Everyone must choose for themselves, but … I know my answer .


  1. Goal 7: “Ensure access to reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.”
    Goal 13: “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.”
    https://sdgs.un.org/goals . ↩︎

1 Like

@Miguel

Indeed, as far as the idea that scientists (and those discussing science with authority) it would make sense to bring up the information and be able to rationally discuss it.

Indeed, my partner, a doctor of physics, with a second doctorate in teaching physics on the way, will openly admit what most scientists in private will openly admit; no one really knows if there is a climatic “tipping point” and what if any fulcrums in the climate exist.

Indeed, it’s a fallacy that there is “scientific community agreement” on the topic. There certainly is very little actual science available.

If we define science as being the discovery of how the world works, we can see that it’s very obvious that is is so “unknown” that when one goes looking for something as obvious as a even a computer model verification of the Stefan-Blotzmann derived starting point, one can’t find one.

I have spent many hours researching and designing what I would think is a reasonable virtual model to do that.

Geological data of the thermal properties of various soils and rocks are plentiful. Indeed there is available actual measurements of the thermal properties of the moon’s regolith. From Apollo 15.

The moon however, isn’t really a great model for the earth as it has a “day” of 13.5 earth days.

It’s also vastly smaller, and doesn’t have the heated core. (I have already calculated in my proto-model the total energy output from just this geothermal energy; from widely available sources).

I am putting it on the “back burner” as I have lots of tax to get out of the way and like to relax too!

It is possible to model though.

Indeed, with the extremely intelligent community here, I really think a working model of the geological earth is possible.

The main question is the starting point of -18C.

If this is accurate, then it does follow that something else is contributing the 33C to get to the observed average of 15C.

The model I envision is one based in freely available geological data. The thermal properties of various soil and rock types.

Starting from a model in a single sand type, one could build up a model which could in essence be a “GCM” for the bare planet itself.

Various schemes have occurred to me, and it would take many iterations of models and approaches to meet a standard of being a virtual verification of the Earth’s starting point.

It’s not a small or simple project, which is why it’s on the backburner right now.

(I am having a lot of fun writing new music at the moment, and generally enjoying my evenings on YouTube!).

1 Like

Of course, before publishing our data, we would need to agree on a release date so we can all “short” various stocks and become rich!

It’s not insider trading, it’s market manipulation; a “hostile takeover”, and that’s legal. :face_with_peeking_eye::sweat_smile::rofl:

First of all, @claudiu, I think it is good that you have made some movements in the direction of exposing your ideas in more expert forums/media than this one. You can always try to do it even in others, in spite of the reservations/preventions that you have exposed.

But having also read the way you had answered to @Srinath about his own inquiries to you, and having observed your frequent reactions when the mere possibility that Richard might be wrong in some opinion/position/statement/concept is raised, I see/judge/think/believe that you are again deeply (corrected: may be not “deeply”… :smiley:) involved emotionally with this topic (this possibility has already been suggested to you more than once in similar contexts).

No problem! Obviously (almost) everyone here deals with similar problems, at different levels, and with the same or different triggers (-at least I do, and my own reactions have been captured on the forum-).

It’s all good (as you say: Cheers!)

Hmmm I can certainly “always try to do it”, but to what end?

I am satisfied with what I’ve found in my almost-two-month intensive search.

It is clear from my experiences that engaging the “experts” (presumably climate scientists/climatologists) that you want me to engage in will not be fruitful, for the reasons I already outlined, none of which you addressed.

Further it is clear that in doing so it won’t change your opinion of the value of the ideas, nor that of anybody else who shares your way of thinking about this – as evidenced by the fact that your finding out that I have indeed gone to “more expert forums/media than this one” changed your opinion of the ideas presented from being essentially valueless because of a lack of a genuine thirst for knowledge, to being essentially valueless because I am “deeply [or ‘may be not “deeply”’] involved emotionally with this topic”. That is, it didn’t change your opinion at all.

As such, I don’t really see the purpose of taking your advice here. It seems to amount to basically advising me that I can indeed go and bang my head repeatedly on a wall, with no benefit to be had for anyone and not even the wall.


I can’t help but think that you’re attempting to somehow put me down for having emotions about this topic – as if becoming “involved emotionally” with something is a sinful act to be frowned upon!

You do realize the point of actualism is to feel your feelings fully and sincerely, and to become involved in it with all your ‘being’? As ‘being’ is intrinsically emotional, it means precisely this, to get “involved emotionally” to the fullest, to seek and to actually find!

Actualism is not something to be engaged in with detachment and non-chalance!

What I presume you mean to say is that you “see/judge/think/believe” that I have become emotionally defensive of what Richard wrote, or fervently wish what he wrote to be true (i.e. that I believe[1] in it), which emotional involvement is distorting my capacity for rational and sensible thinking about the topic.

Yet such an observation/judgement/thought/belief that you had suffers the same problem that @JonnyPitt’s did in the Cause of Bias? thread – namely, you haven’t provided any examples of me having been irrational/not sensible/factually incorrect/etc. on the topic.

Further as I am basically agreeing with what Richard wrote, you would also be saying that Richard himself suffered from some lack of rationality or sensibility when he wrote his article. (Presumably if you agreed with what he wrote you would not have qualms with me re-presenting what he wrote here.) Yet, again, you haven’t provided any examples or evidence for this.

As you have basically indicated that you have no intention of providing any examples [2], then it doesn’t appear anything fruitful can come from continuing down this line of conversation, does it?

Lastly as I spent a good part of these almost-two-months trying to prove Richard wrong about the relevance of point 11 in his article (as I wrote in my journal recently), then a key part of your premise - that I am basically deeply (or “may be not “deeply””) emotionally involved in defending something Richard wrote for the sole fact that he is Richard and I believe whatever he says (rather than, say, because he wrote something factual and I critically evaluated it with everything I got) - is shown to be invalid.


May I ask – what is prompting you to write what you wrote here in these last messages to me, since as you indicated[2:1], it isn’t due to a critical evaluation of what I’ve written? What is your goal in doing so, what are you looking to get out of it?

It’s a sincere question!

Cheers,
Claudiu


  1. Peter: To believe means ‘fervently wish to be true’.” (source) ↩︎

  2. As you wrote that I “should expose your ideas to those who have the time, the knowledge and the will to analyze them properly” , and you are one of the people on the forum that I have exposed my ideas to, you are essentially saying that you yourself do not have “the time, knowledge, and the will to analyze them properly” . ↩︎ ↩︎

@claudiu

I really appreciate the the time and energy you have displayed in digging into and exploring this topic.

It’s had a massive impact on my day to day thinking.

I see more how I don’t enact certain actions because it will put me “at odds” with my feelings about who I am.

To stay on topic though, your recent posts about point number 11, have made me consider this aspect of the AGW argument.

I read an article which claims to debunk the thermodynamic objection.

That is, the sun puts out light which hits the earth without much “long wave” IR.

The defence of the greenhouse effect put forth is that the sun’s light hits the atmosphere with minimal “long wave” IR, which means the heat interacts minimally with the gases of the atmosphere. The earth, upon being heated by the total light spectrum, radiates “long wave” IR which does interact with the atmospheric gases.

What struck me about this defence of AGW, was the “greenhouse theory” predates the knowledge of “short” and “long” IR.

It also relies on knowledge which at the very earliest is a a few decades old (there were no satellites measuring IR outside the atmosphere), and is not presented in the main justifications of AGW.

This to me is a smoking gun.

On the surface, it seems like a reasonable defence. One type of IR can get through the atmosphere unmolested by gases, but can’t get out, as it’s now a different wavelength of IR.

The flaw in the defence is that the entire atmosphere is trapping the second type of IR. Meaning, the importance of CO2 has no special place in the function beyond being better that 02 or N2 at absorbing and radiating this IR.

The supposed defence of CO2, infact elevates the entire atmosphere to the level of a “one way” insulation.

Have you noticed though that all the supposed debunkings of the thermodynamic objection are just this - articles, explanations, calculations, models, etc. - and never experiments?

Show me one experiment where a cold thing makes a hot thing hotter and then there may be something to discuss.

For me what cinched it is this. I was driving along a highway on a fine sunny partly-cloudy day. All of a sudden I saw what the warmists were saying: that everything as I was seeing it now, all the temperatures of what I was observing — if we were to instantaneously double or triple or whatever the amount of trace gas magic substance CO2 in the atmosphere — then with the same solar input (ie the thing that is heating everything in the first place) — everything would get hotter! The ground would warm up and the skies would too. And as heat is energy it means we would be getting more energy for the same amount of input - ie free energy!

The physical world just doesn’t work this way … whatever the mathematical models (quantum mechanical or otherwise) say.

I am open to being wrong … by seeing an experiment that demonstrates the supposed phenomenon. As when the warmists aren’t touting fraudulent experiments that purport to show the GHE but don’t[1], they are saying that it can’t be experimentally demonstrated[2] — then that seems to rather settle the debate.

Cheers,
Claudiu


  1. “A number of lecture demonstrations with carbon dioxide purport to show how infrared-absorbing atmospheric gases “trap” energy. The demonstration described here shows that the temperature change observed in these demonstrations is a consequence of the density of carbon dioxide relative to air, not its infrared-absorbing property. Since the pedagogical value instructors report for the usual demonstration is based on an incorrect interpretation of the temperature change and can lead to a misconception about global warming, suggestions are made for possible replacement demonstrations.” [“Benchtop Global-Warming Demonstrations Do Not Exemplify the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, but Alternatives Are Available”], Jerry A. Bell] ↩︎

  2. “I don’t know of any way to demonstrate the planetary greenhouse effect on a laboratory scale.” [John Doty]
    “This is a pity, because even the simplest explanations of the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism are still relatively abstract mathematical models of the physics at play. For classrooms, a more concrete model would be useful. Although a demonstration involving IR radiation does not seem feasible […]” [“Benchtop Global-Warming Demonstrations Do Not Exemplify the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, but Alternatives Are Available”], Jerry A. Bell] ↩︎

Absolutely, the article just goes on and on and didn’t even bring up that particular defence (short range vs long range IR, that was way down in the comments.).

Which goes back to my very naive expectation to find someone at the very least with a blow torch and some dirt validating the thermal starting point of the greenhouse theory.

Nothing.

Not a single experiment.

At this point, I think that the chances of AGW in the way currently popular being correct are like winning a 40 million to 1 lottery; not impossible, but so very very unlikely.

Which is a very interesting point; there is this emotional hope that they are right.

I don’t want to be lied to so completely. I don’t want to see, yet again, the mass delusions writ so large and blatant.

I want, with no small amount of hope, that they are right.

I am so very tired of everyone being so wrong about everything important.

I should write a song about it. :joy:

No actualist daddy issues then? Good to know :grin:

I wonder if GHE hoaxers and climate alarmists are 2 sides of the same coin? Both seem intent on collapsing complexity and uncertainty in favour of simple reassuring (or terrifying) master narratives. And in a complex area like this how is one to tell apart the clarity of one who has seen the facts from the smugness of moral certitude?

No time to get my calculus and thermodynamics up to snuff to a degree that would satisfy me that Claudiu’s arguments have any merit. So I’m going to go with the earth scientists who do this for this for a living for now. They’re a diverse bunch with unity in their POV’s being more apparent than real. But even the vast majority of climate sceptic physicists have no beef with GHE. Their questions are about other aspects of AGW - tipping points (which Andrew mentioned), background natural variability, feedbacks, climate models …. etc. Anyway those strike me as more fruitful targets for scepticism than GHE - although not nearly as sexy and dramatic. That’s my highly inexpert opinion.

Call me crazy and elitist, but I wouldn’t want to have say a kidney stone removed by someone who has ‘dug into’ nephrology for 2 months. Same for millions of other subjects I have no time to research myself (short of living another life) from computational neuroscience to plate techtonics. The medical/scientific establishment with its peer review process might be shambolic and seriously flawed but it’s not beyond redemption. I don’t think self-publishing technical subjects in our actualism forums without any serious oversight presents a credible alternative! All the same I think its good to not just sit there and reverently accept what scientists are saying - about global warming or anything else. So good on Claudiu, Son of Bob, Andrew and others for actually taking the time to do some research and trying to make up their own minds about this.

Also I don’t see why experimental models of natural phenomenon have to be the holy grail given their inherent and serious limitations.

1 Like

I’m really intrigued that you do see it this way. But would you take the same approach with the scientists who study the universe for a living and think it’s likely they are therefore correct about the Big Bang or this universe not being infinite/having some nothingness on the outside that space and time is expanding into?

I don’t really know @Kub933 Haven’t thought about it in years. The Big Bang theory is so much more abstract and even more technically dense than the greenhouse effect that I don’t know what to make of it. I know Stephen Hawking didn’t believe in a beginning or end to the universe so don’t know how universally accepted it is.

I guess the difference is that unlike GHE, my occasional experience of the fabulous infinitude of the universe raises questions how something like the Big Bang could have arisen. It doesn’t have a lot of appeal. But that isn’t a rock solid refutation.

@Srinath The most salient thing I observe is that your words don’t have nearly the sting they would if they were backed by psychic currents which you no longer generate! @Miguel’s post was thus far more effective at using the same type of approach — ie not evaluating the arguments but making an appeal to groupthink authority — than yours.

I’m reminded of what Vineeto wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 (emphasis added):

VINEETO: However, should a newly free person abandon the pure intent to become fully free and thus become complacent and entrenched within the shadow identity of their social guardian they would be thinking and acting similar to their former self, but without the fierceness of the instinctual passions – like a toothless tiger. Then the very idea to have this newly established identity abdicate can produce some strong resistance. It’s a matter of one’s metal, I suppose.
V – Man from Sydney re towards Full Freedom

In any case as there’s no critique of the arguments there isn’t much to discuss. However, as to:

There’s no need to delve deeply into the math or physics of these matters. All you have to do is observe that a cold thing never heats a hotter thing that it is being heated by — if you stand next to a fireplace you don’t make the fire hotter, if you boil water on the stove the pot doesn’t make the stove hotter, if you stand next to a cold wall the wall doesn’t make you hotter.

Then you have to understand that the greenhouse effect is described to be that the cold atmosphere is heating its heat source - the Earth - by +33C.

Then you just put two and two together and see that they’re describing a physically impossible phenomenon!

What about your total experience of never having witnessed a cold thing heat a hot thing?

Cheers,
Claudiu