Discussions

@Sven Groot:

How do electrons know where to go? Do they have memory?

How do gas molecules know where to go? Do they also need a memory?

No, of course not.

That's why we have that darn second law of thermodynamics, it states that heat flows from hot to cold. Regardless of what kind of radiation fields you have. It's the same with electrons, from positive to negative. Same with gas molecules, from high pressure to low pressure. This is basic physics. Nature always tries to balance everything out.

To state that there can be a heat flow from cold to hot and that the net flow must be from hot to cold, is folly. There is no net flow of heat. There is either a flow or no flow.

You seem to agree with me, that the bouncing radiation is a stupid idea. Good, glad we can agree on something. But due note that this is the core of the IPCC reports, see the link proton posted. I like the NASA idea of the energy budget better. But what they hell do they know, it's not like they've been to the moon or something.

You seem also to agree with me that the atmosphere creates a lag on cooling and warming. Good, now we just need to get the facts straight that either it's done by gravity (like on Mars, Venus and all the other planets, moons, stars, black holes, pulsars, etc. etc. in the galaxy) or (like on earth, yes we are that special) by greenhouse gasses.

@Proton2: Excellent piece!

@PaoloM:  I know! It's ridiculous right? However, that's exactly what they claim.

Look at the previous graph I posted, that is the representation of all the 'known' radiation flows by;

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/

That's not what's happening. The infrared radiation is scattered and deflected IN ALL DIRECTIONS by CO2 molecules. If there were less CO2 molecules, less heat would be deflected back to the surface, and more heat would escape the gravity well.

Yes all directions, except it's origin,.. That's what the trifle with the second law is about,..

@Sven Groot:

Now I'm confused,.

The whole greenhouse theory rests on the fact that they believe that the earth emits longwave radiation, CO2 absorbs this and sends it back to the planet, where it gets reabsorbed and reemitted, this is the theory of the greenhouse effect.

That's what the graph I posted above and on the previous page clearly shows. Bouncing around longwave radiation.

If you now conclude that this isn't the case, then we are in agreement!

@Sven Groot:

I would like to add a challenge to you.

Show me one experiment or natural phenomenon where photons (or electrons) get absorbed by the emitter, without additional work performed (or external powersource).

@Sven Groot:

Then let's begin by what you define to be the greenhouse theory, as there are several versions.

I'm talking about this model;

Where longwave radiation is bounced between the atmosphere and the surface (shown in the graph on the right hand side). The problem I have with this model, is the "Back Radiation".

If you have an other interpretation/explanation of the greenhouse effect, please share.

I sometimes feel like a Prince Ruperts Drop

@evildictaitor:

That would be interesting indeed. But I'm not really interested in climate science. What I'm interested in, is what government does with climate science as a legitimacy.

When my energy bill got raised by 50% to help save the planet, I started reading about the science that is supposed to justify this raise. The internet being the main source of information. I thought it was a dubious story, but I had no reason to distrust them. Then when additional levies got raised in order to save the planet, I started to look into the policy effects of the redistribution of these resources and meanwhile found opposing voices to the science.

What I found, really shocked me. I found the science lacking and I found that the policies have a negative effect on the wellbeing of people. This single issue has changed my whole attitude towards science and towards government, it was a real eye opener for me.

I just hope that on this forum, with a lot of intelligent people and many of you I consider my peers, come to see that the emperor has no clothes.

Edit;

Small note I would like to make, I do not doubt that our climate is changing. I doubt that CO2 emissions drive these changes. And I doubt that lowering our CO2 emissions is the right way to reverse these changes, I would much rather spend the resources on climate change adaption.

4 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Just because Maddus is wrong on climate change, doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good employee at Microsoft. Lack of a PhD might be obstructive to getting a job in MSR though.

*snip*

http://careers.microsoft.com/

Thanks, appreciate it

@Sven Groot: Thought we might end up discussing the validity of the papers, but that would be moving the goalposts.

I've presented my case, it's time to draw conclusions,.

So either you are a believer in the greenhouse theory that states that bouncing radiation between the atmosphere and the surface is responsible for warming, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. That CO2 is the main driver behind this effect and we should at considerable expense (human lives) limit the emissions of this gas.

Or you are a believer that gravity and the sun is what determines the temperature and the climate here on earth and that we are just along for the ride.