Full disclosure: I’ve had a connection with pure intent for about 2 consecutive weeks now. I think just maintaining that connection is what it’s all about. Everything becomes clear. It’s so wonderful. Anyways my question is. Are you going to use this ‘Aha moment’ described in quotes to re-establish or maintain a connection to pure intent? If you do, all the best. And send me a line, I’m having the best of times. We could talk about how terrifying I am about losing this connection and being normal again. How my whole practice, I’ve cycled from being near the actual world to being far away from it. And how I perceive this one to be different. So many things.
1 Like
Claudiu, that’s great and may it be so. The right answer is an existential one rather than anything else - that will ultimately spell the end of ‘you’. Just do it!
He mentioned the “scale” of the atmosphere. Which was why my mind went straight to looking for geological models for the starting point.
Also he mentions that if an increase in CO2 were responsible for increased temperature, then the effect would be immediately observable.
There would be no decades long delay in temperature rise. The IR would immediately have heated the planet. Zero delay.
There is no measurements (which haven’t been otherwise manipulated and lied about) showing any increase in global temperature beyond seasonal and cyclic variation.
That really does seal it for me.
To sum up, any increase in CO2 would according to the “greenhouse effect” have an immediate effect.
Nice vid and channel – and there at 8:53 comes the Point 11 that I had so much trouble with:
i.e. if downward infrared backradiation did indeed work like it does in the atmospheric greenhouse effect, then this is how stoves would work. There would be a hot surface, and then a small vacuum gap (to prevent conduction & convection), and an IR-transparent pot would sit on top of this. Then the heater surface would be heated to a temperature far less than 100°C. The water would absorb the heat, this would warm the water up, and then radiate infrared both upwards and downwards. The downward infrared radiation would then heat the surface of the heater past what it was (without adding any additional power) until it eventually got to 100°C and boiled the water!
This would be incredibly useful and it surely would have been discovered and invented by now, it would be how stoves work.
Yet in the real world, we have to heat the stove past 100°C in order to boil the water! 
Cheers,
Claudiu
Yes! That’s what finally put it to rest.
If steam can’t heat the surface of the water it came from, and it’s actually hot, then it’s plainly obvious a cold atmosphere isn’t going to heat the surface of the earth.
It was his comment that radiation is instantaneous that really got me.
Any increase in CO2 (or water vapour etc) would instantaneously heat the globe if “back radiation” is really what turns a frozen planet into a livable one.
I haven’t tried it yet, but it should be possible to show this from the climate “science” published numbers.
That is; “radiative forcing” is ascribed to certain gases. In proportion to the 33C they are attributed to providing.
Why there should be any controversy is beyond me, as it would be primary school mathematics to work that out.
So is the consensus here that CO2 doesn’t trap heat? I’m interested in pursuing this topic for my own edification. But I need to dumb it down first. Otherwise, it’ll be too much unfamiliar knowledge too fast.
Not in the way that the “greenhouse effect” is said to do it at a scale which warms the planet 33C above it’s (Stefan Boltzmann derived) -18C starting point to the observed 15C average surface temperature.
It’s not that there is no trapping/ radiation etc going on, just the amount that is associated with “radiative forcing” which is the backbone of the CO2 AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) doctrine.
It didn’t sound like you were saying that. I got that you thought the original -18C temp without CO2 number was basically just a guess. And that there is no greenhouse effect at all. Are you able to concisely explain to a non-scientist who hasn’t done his research why you think CO2 traps heat but isn’t responsible for the melting glaciers? It’d really help me frame my research.
The original -18C proposed by the use of a modified Stefan-Blotzmann equation has indeed been my main interest. I can’t conclusively prove it is wrong without building a computer model.
So what Claudiu has been investigating, which climate AGW proponents call “radiative forcing” is more fruitful for an amateur.
It’s indisputable that everything that can absorb heat can radiate heat. That includes all matter, which includes all gasses.
The question is can a very thin layer of gasses raise the temperature of the planet from -18C to 15C?
Well, like our experience of insulation in everyday life, air can insulate us. Our own bodies attempt to do this with goosebumps. The body causes hairs to stand on end to trap air next to the skin. It’s very ineffective because most people are not hairy enough.
As far as the planet goes, the air (held to the planet with gravity and the magnetic field) traps heat. However, it can’t trap heat which wasn’t already there.
The mechanism of “greenhouse effect” is proposing that it not only traps heat, which is obvious, but also raises the temperature of the surface beyond it’s starting point.
This is impossible.
1 Like
So there are at least 3 lines of inquiry;
-
Dig into the theoretical science and numbers, the Stefan-Blotzmann equation, thermodynamics, gas absorption spectrums, etc.
-
Dig into the history of the “greenhouse” theory.
-
Search for experimental examples.
My personal hypothesis is that the average temperature of the planet without an atmosphere or water, (and obviously without life)
is close to the observed average temperature of 15C. Perhaps higher, perhaps lower, but not radically far away from the observed average.
I didn’t answer this.
CO2 traps heat because all matter traps heat.
Anything which interacts in the material universe, interacts with heat.
So, all the gases (is it gases or gasses? English really needs a makeover), being matter, will absorb and radiate heat. CO2 will do it better than O2 or N2 because of how it is; it has far more matter in it.
To say it isn’t making a difference to global temperature is wrong. Of course it does. All matter on the planet is interacting with heat.
The question is whether it is pivotally impacting global temperature in the way the political AGW advocates claim.
No.
Simply no.
It has no where near the matter required to make the difference they propose.
If we were emitting granite, or limestone, or something substantial, it would make a huge difference. However, that matter would have to be in addition to the matter already on the planet. Which obviously is impossible.
To be frank, I don’t think the value of this topic is in the conclusion, but rather in the process of seeking the answers which appeal to your curiosity.
Indeed!
Doesn’t virtually all the Earth’s heat originally come from sunlight. And the Sun continuously heats the planet. If the planet wasn’t able to cool off then wouldn’t it get hotter and hotter like a jogger wearing winter gear who eventually overheats?
Well, yes, that is the fact of it. So perhaps the atmosphere actually cools the planet down!
There is around average of 60KW per square kilometre of geothermal heat.
From link below;
Recent scientific measurements suggest a global heat flux equivalent to 31 Terrawatts of Power.
Averaged over the earth’s surface, this equates 60 KW per square kilometer of heat flux (or 60 mW/m2), but as shown in the figure below, there is considerable varation around this."
http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/162/geothermal.html
That isn’t a lot of heat, but it is completely ignored in the Stefan-Blotzmann equation.
Two thoughts:
1- by this logic isn’t it how stoves should work? See: Global warming/climate change - #286 by claudiu . I mean the heat source would continuously heat the heating element. If it can’t cool off — because there’s a pot of water in the way — then shouldn’t it keep heating up, until it can boil the water away?
We could all be saving so much on our power bills!
When relating the proposed theory to everyday objects it doesn’t quite fit does it?
2- here’s a funny thought. According to some proponents of AGW, gases like O2 and N2 can’t radiate heat at all! NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab disagrees with them — they put out a book in which it’s written that all matter radiates heat including gases — but in any case let’s say they’re right.
That means that O2 and N2 (making up 99% of the atmosphere) would be perfectly and 100% trapping heat! They would be getting heated up by conduction and convection from the ground, and by the CO2 and other IR gases in the air absorbing IR, but literally would be unable to lose the heat in any way at all (not by radiation; and not by conduction or convection as they would already be cooler than the surface of the Earth).
Therefore the IR gases which can radiate heat, would actually be causing a cooling, because they can radiate some heat away while the other 99% of gases can’t.
Of course if the O2 and N2 can radiate heat as well… then they would be causing just as much of a greenhouse effect as CO2, by the exact same proposed mechanism (“back-radiation”).
So either way it doesn’t make sense 
See The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory - American Thinker for full article and references etc.
I am not sure exactly what you mean “by this logic”, but this bit
Is to me one of the main points of what is missing in the Stefan-Blotzmann derived temperature; time.
Materials do keep heating up, and will keep heating up, even to the point and beyond of transforming into other states of matter. Water heats up and becomes a vapour.
Rocks heat up too, with enough heat they can become a liquid, even a gas, as they break down.
This has what has been occupying my mind in the whole discussion; a virtual model of the earth without atmosphere, water etc, and just the calculations of what that body would do.
The geological properties of the sand, silt, rocks etc, rotating correctly, at the correct tilt.
What would be the average temperature?
Because as you say, the water in the jug will keep boiling as long as enough heat is being applied.
So what does happen to an earth spinning in 3K space, bathed in unfiltered solar radiation do?
I have downloaded various data sheets on rocks and sand etc, with the data about how well they conduct heat, IR penetration etc.
When I finally get my taxes done, and all the extra work that appeared lately, and after starting to record and finish my EP, I want to build that virtual model.
I really suspect that the earths average temperature under those conditions is similar, or perhaps even higher than the 15C.
It could well be that the atmosphere is cooling the planet.
Indeed the ice core levels of CO2 show the levels rising hundreds of years after a warm period before the planet cools down.
Interestingly, I was in Russian lessons with an 81 year old Aussie guy who, when I told him I was investigating all of this, said “in the 70s they (scientists) were saying we are going into an ice age”!
It’s referring to this:
By this logic we would only need to heat a stovetop to say 50°C, then put a pot of water on it, and as the stovetop couldn’t cool anymore because of the water in the way, it would heat the water, which would then in turn heat the stovetop (or ‘prevent it from cooling’ if you prefer), etc., until the stovetop would get to the sufficient 100°C+ needed to boil the water!
But we all know in the physical world, the stovetop has to initially be hotter than 100°C in order to boil the water.
You’re saying a pot of water could heat the stovetop up, so we only need to put enough energy to make the stovetop 50°C and this can result in eventually getting the water to boil?
I don’t think the physical world works that way!
This is an imaginary scenario where the calculation wouldn’t correspond to any possible physical reality. As an example only, you can’t have sand and silt without air and water! (sand: “Sand is an authentic relic. In a way, we could say that a beach is the result of thousands of years of mechanical interaction between the earth, air, water and, in some cases, even fire.” ; silt: “fine sand, clay, or other material carried by running water and deposited as a sediment, especially in a channel or harbour.”)
Well you could just glance at the Earth’s neighbor, the moon, which gets the same amount of sun and indeed has no atmosphere. It gets to over +120°C during the day and under -120°C at night!
While I don’t understand the physical principle, you have brought it up many times: The source can’t heat itself up. My brain doesn’t understand that yet. But if I simply take it as true then the stove would never heat up past it’s original temperature. (I’m guessing the air coming back would be too cold).
So why is this a good analogy? It’s the sun that heats up the earth. No one is claiming a hotter atmosphere will heat up the Sun. I don’t see how it makes a difference that the Sun is heating up the atmosphere by first bouncing it’s energy off the earth’s surface. It’s still the sun that is doing the heating. It seems like my joggers analogy is the better one. But a better one would be someone wearing all winter gear at noon on the Equator out of the shade away from the ocean. The Sun heats him past 37 degrees, the gear traps the heat, he gets too hot and passes out. I must be missing something about the Earth’s surface reflecting the Sun’s rays. But I’m not seeing how that changes what the heat source is.
Sorry I have to put this one aside for the time being.
Addendum (edit): I apologize for being dense but I’m cooking up some noodles as we speak on my gas stove and have been thinking about what is quite the riddle for me. Is the Sun the heat source or the reflecting matter; the Earth? And for some reason it always comes back to it being the Sun. So the way I am thinking, a proper stove analogy would be the Sun is the fire on the stove, the water is the surface of the Earth and a lid is the CO2. IME, the water boils much faster when there is a lid on it. But I’m probably wrong about that. I was really bad at the hard sciences as a pupil. I liked anthropology and basic astronomy but when it came down to making precise measurements or calculating chemical reactions, I sucked.
1 Like