"Climate: The Movie" producer. The movie is available for free online at many locations.
There is no climate crisis. The Earth isn't too hot. The weather isn't getting worse. Carbon dioxide is *not* the climate control knob. Going back to year-1850 temperatures and CO2 levels would be harmful for life on Earth.
Interviews and presentations on climate and energy realism, with guests including Will Happer, Judith Curry, Marc Morano, Carl-Otto Weiss, Valentina Zharkova, Christopher Essex, Henrik Svensmark, Patrick Moore, Ross McKitrick, Willie Soon, Susan Crockford, Peter Ridd, Christopher Monckton, and Richard Lindzen.
Everyone and their cat knows Gravity is an attraction induced by the orbiting of electrons around the nucleus of an atom. As the electrons whizz round, they call out "Come here, come here."
Hard to verify or debunk when projected into the future, true, but look at the number of times they have projected into future and when we eventually git there those projections were found to be wrong. Every time. 100% wrong!
In my paper I also did „ex-post“ predictions by e.g. using data from 1950 to 1999 for constructing the model parameters. When you look at the predictions until 2020, you will notice 2 facts: - the error bar is very thin - the actual data are in the center of this slim error bar. This gives me confidence that the same applies for the limited time period of the next 50 years. This is a fundamental difference to the GCM climate models, which tend to systematically overestimate. You may have noticed that I make no prediction about temperature, because temperature error bars are so large that they forbid any projections.
@@videosjoachimdengler7426 yes exactly. And thank for the response. As an analyst I know very well how easy it is to make bias mistakes in building a model that seeks to project future outcomes and indeed how east it is to make a model seem to credibly show exactly what the principle wants you to show. That is why I reference the amount of times the Climate Alarmist projections have failed, this is crucial I believe and they will continue to fail. The models are not correct and I suspect ta fair number of them fall into my latter category rather than the former because the entire filed is rife with politicisation. Why, for instance do so many, if not all, IPCC used models omit water vapour? Why will the likes of Michael Mann take to the airwaves to launch ad hominem attacks but alway refuses to debate his targets? Where I come fro we call that ring and run…
You left out a major issue with "Net Zero", something that is another major scam. People are duped into believing "Net Zero" is something it is not, it is NOT zero CO2, this is because "Net Zero" allows for "carbon offsets"; which allows huge energy consumers such as Google to claim "Net Zero". The easiest (but not 100% correct because it is designed to be confusing) explaination of "carbon offset" is that a (usually) 3rd world country (or organization in such country) will designate a large (huge) tract of (usually) forest as protected. They will usually take a small portion of that land with the highest "carbon" value to be a proxy for the whole tract. This leads to a declaration on total carbon content of the tract to be significantly higher than reality. They then auction off chunks of this carbon to both energy consumers and energy producers. The energy consumer or producer can then subtract (offset) their carbon consumption or production. This is how corporations (and even countries) can claim "Net Zero" when they haven't reduced consumption or production; and while usually expanding their consumption or production. To make this scam even worse is that many of the "protected" lands haven't been well protected. There is just too much long term wealth by cutting down trees (to create farms, mines, expand cities, etc.). -------------- Then there is another huge issue, that I would expect an engineer to discuss. CO2 only contributes less than 5% of the total green house effect, methane is less than 3%. Water vapor contributes over 90% to the greenhouse effect. Remember that their stated goal is to reduce carbon emissions to pre-indistrial levels. Except many countries are on a special list that means they don't have to participate in reducing their carbon emission levels (basically 3rd world and developing nations). In order to reduce world-wide carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the industrial nations would have to cut their emissions to zero and in fact have very high negative emissions. Impossible. Even if the industrial nations only had to cut their carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels it would lead to massive deaths. Remember that they want the carbon emissions reduced to pre-industrial levels but not on a per capita basis. The Industrial Age began in England in the mid 18th century. Most of Europe and North America saw the Industrial age by the mid 19th century. I will conservatively say the US in 1880 when the population was 50.2 million. The current population us 342 million. This means on a per capital basis each person would only be allowed 14.7% of the carbon emissions of an 1880's person. Even if we kept current total carbon emissions but adjusted for 1880's per capita. Try to imagine life where you are restricted to 14.7% energy ( most US energy is carbon based so maybe you would only have to reduce to 20%). No grocery store food, no modern transportation, little to no heat and hot water, no air conditioning, no modern clothing and the list goes on. --------------- Did you notice that they now say "carbon" instead of "carbon dioxide"? I have. I believe this change came about for 2 reasons. The primary reason is that "fossil fuels" produce mainly Carbon Monoxide and very little direct Carbon Dioxide. Most of the indirect Carbon Dioxide comes from catalytic convertors (internal combustion engines) and scrubbers ("fossil fuel" production plants). About half a century Carbon Monoxide pollution was considered bad as it is a major contributor to smog. It was decided to create a device to convert the bad Carbon Monoxide to the safe Carbon Dioxide (and similar conversions for Sulfer and Nitrogen, acid rain). In the US, if you use natural gas or propane in your house then code will require a Carbon Monoxide detector, not a Carbon Dioxide detector. Both Carbon Monoxide and Dioxide can cause poisoning and eventually death. Household natural gas and propane appliances do not have a magic device (such as a catalytic converter) to transform Carbon Monoxide to Carbon Dioxide. On the other hand, US Nuclear submarines have Carbon Dioxide detectors because people create Carbon Dioxide but very rarely is Carbon Monoxide produce and when it is it is vented outside. So there is are issues when only Carbon Dioxide is discussed when talking about evil "fossil fuels" and wood (including peat and others) burning. 1. Burning "fossil fuels" and wood actually releases very little Carbon Dioxide. 2. Cars and other "road legal" "fossil fuel" based vehicles have catalytic converters which converts Carbon Monoxide to Carbon Dioxide. 3. Most other internal combustion engines lack a catalytic converter and therefore mostly produce Carbon Monoxide with little Carbon Dioxide produced. 3. "Fossil fuel" power plants and other industries (such as smelters) that directly use "fossil fuels" have scrubbers that transform Carbon Monoxide to Carbon Dioxide. This means that most "fossil fuel" Carbon Dioxide production is a choice, as Carbon Monoxide actually damages the environment. Changing the messaging from "Carbon Dioxide evil" to "Carbon evil" eliminates the issue. Remember that Carbon Dioxide contributes about 5% to the greenhouse effect but Carbon Monoxide isn't a greenhouse gas. As the population tends to be less educated and because of texting/messaging they have become language lazy. Dropping the "dioxide" leaving just "Carbon" appears to follow such laziness but really hides the Carbon Monoxide issue. ------------ And finally there is the fact that past temperatures were lowered and recent temperatures have been raised. They will come up with many excuses but ignore that the rate of temperature "mysteriously" follows Carbon Dioxide levels. They also ignore that most temperature stations are now affected by heat islands as cities and airports have grown up around them. This biases temps upwards. Most people believe that there is a world temperature gauge. Or they think that there have been good historic temperature stations world-wide; both are false. Much of this "historic" temperature data was done via proxy. Whole regions/countries may have been lucky to have a single temperature station. Many records for cities used the data for a different city and then often adjusted. This is a polite way of saying the data is made up. Often this is still not enough, so they'll ALWAYS chose a start date that proves that temperatures are increasing or weather getting worse or more "wild fires" (most modern wild fires are man-made) or any other statistic they want to "prove the narrative". Remember that every year bigger/more powerful supercomputers are brought online. Yet not a single climate computer model prediction has ever been anywhere near reality (or rather their adjusted reality).
Imagine producing electricity that is arguably cheap enough to not bother metering! "Finnish Nuclear Plant Throttles Output After Electricity Prices "Become Too Cheap""-ZeroHedge If the general public realized only a fraction of what Wallace is talking about in this video, think of the world we could be living in!
Your councilors do not think for themselves are puppets for something else. They can't afford to care what they're doing, selling England by the pound.
No mind, no ego, no spirit, no soul. These are just words. We are no different than dogs barking. Religion is the oldest trick in the book by the Ruling Class. Leviticus 3:16. All the fat is the Lord's.
I am of a slimier background to Tom Shula and I agree with the majority of commentators here. I suggest that these proper in-depth scientific findings must be used as categorical evidence to say to the public that the UN WEF dictate which says "CO2 controls earths clime" is wrong. I furthermore contest that the UN WEF control of media politicians and financial institutions is a patent travesty on democracy and peoples freedoms and liberty no matter where in the world. The UN WEF and affiliated supporters of the CO2 scare/threat must be brought to court without delay as it is a crime against humanity. They have already caused serious world conflict that could lead to a world war. and the mass extermination of billions.
SEARCH FOR: "Semantic Scholar Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years". During Roman times, the Alps had virtually no glaciers, while in 1859/60 they reached their maximum size of the past 3500 years thanks to the Little Ice Age.
Listening to Paul's experience, and skills, comparing that to Jim Dale, really exposes how much of a clown JD is. To think, he has the gall to challenge Paul, and claim, Paul's data is false.
It is true that water vapour and convective circulation are the great vehicles of atmospheric energy transport. But radiative transfer calculations should not be dismissed altogether. Radiative transfer occurs throughout the atmosphere.
It is good to hear you vigorously criticise the use of the word 'equilibrium' in the present context. The word 'equilibrium' has a multitude of meanings, and, unqualified', is mostly too vague for the present context. The term 'forcing' is a vicious invention of "climate science", and is a widely used vehicle for gravely muddled thinking.
It is a pity that you comply with the common practice of speaking of 'transport of heat by convection'. The preferable terminology is to speak of 'transport of energy by convection'. This distinction was drawn by Maxwell, and is a good one. I urge you to follow it. Heat is transferred by radiation, conduction, and friction. There is a small but not ignorable upwards transfer of energy in the atmosphere by radiation with absorption, thermalization, and thermal excitation and further emission; it is not common practice (that I know of) to calculate the rate of this form of energy transport, because it is quite complicated to do so. Not all calculations of atmospheric radiative transfer are one dimensional; good atmospheric radiative transfer calculations take into account radiation into every direction, which is three dimensional. Again, such calculations are complicated. It is a big mistake to say that back radiation does not occur. The atmosphere very substantially radiates back to the condensed matter surface. Though it is a little less than it, the atmospheric back radiation is nearly as great as the atmospheric absorption of surface emitted radiation. This is fully consistent with the vast majority of energy transport within the atmosphere being by convective circulation (including so-called 'advective' circulation). It is also fully consistent with the vast majority of energy transfer from the condensed matter surface to the atmosphere being by evaporation and conduction. You say "all but a very small fraction of OLR comes from water vapour." The fraction of OLR that is radiated directly from the condensed matter and cloud is around 14%. It is a matter of choice whether one calls 14% 'a very small fraction'. You say that the atmospheric "water vapour molecules radiate through thermally excited emission". To me, that makes it natural to say that the atmosphere emits thermal radiation, though you like to define it as not doing so, because you like to insist that thermal radiation be restricted to radiation from condensed matter. Radiation from condensed matter can be more or less perfectly blackbody.
You contributed 6 paragraphs here. Quick reply’s on each. 1. Three methods of heat energy transport: conduction, convection, radiation. Convection can transport sensible heat or latent heat, but only heat. Friction is not a method of heat transport, it is a method of creating sensible heat by putting work into a system. 2. You basically described the method by which energy is transported from the surface to space as we present it in our work. Then you stated why it is not modeled that way. That’s a very concise summary of what we have presented. 3. All of the radiative transfer models that led to the incorrect postulate of AGW based on the imagined GHE are one dimensional static models using global averages and calculating equilibrium for various scenarios. It continues today. 4. You may have a point on the back radiation and I am reconsidering what the magnitude could be. That being said, it is all recycled energy from thermalization and thermally excited emission and so does not play any role in energy transport. 5. I think you missed the “outside of the atmospheric window part. 6.Radiation from thermally excited emission is not thermal radiation. You have made many comments on this thread. While I would like to respond to all, your focus seems to be on bringing up points from the standard narrative. I don’t have enough time to keep responding to things that for the most part are explained in our work. I suggest you download a copy of the paper from Tom Nelson’s substack page.
@@ThomasShula Thank you for your response. I guess you will call me an idle academic, lacking the practical virtues of an engineer. But here goes. In the days of the caloric theory, people such as Laplace and Lavoisier thought of 'heat' as a constitutuent of a body, something that could be transported with the body. Benjamin Thompson and others, about 1800, showed that 'heat' described a process, as it entered into a body. The modern thermodynamic definition of heat is 'energy in transfer into a body from its surroundings, by means other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter.' Heat enters a body by microscopic paths, mainly conduction, radiation, and friction. Some engineering texts prefer to stick with the caloric theory notion. Sad to say, at present, the Wikipedia article on heat is controlled by a Wikilawyer who seems to have read only one textbook (written by a quantum mechanics author), and by a telephone engineer. They use the caloric theory definition. As to your (1.): Maxwell pointed out that convection transports internal energy, not heat. I can see that you prefer the caloric theory. That is your privilege. I note that you have changed your wording from 'transport of heat' to 'transport of heat energy'. I see that as a step in the right direction. As to your (2.): ok. As to your (3.): You seem mainly to refer to what is often called 'the forcing and feedback formalism'. I agree that it is vicious rubbish. As to your (4.): I am glad to see that you are reconsidering back radiation. It seems to me that you dismiss the work of Schwarzchild on radiative transfer in gases. I accept that it is a highly specialised topic, the province of physicists such as van Wijngaarden and Happer. That it is used by warmists does not invalidate it; they get the big picture wrong, but not every detail. I think you might reconsider your dismissal of it, because it is well established in physics. The temperature of the atmosphere is around that of infrared radiation. The atmosphere is semitransparent to such radiation. You are of course free to insist on not calling such radiation 'thermal'. Very roughly speaking, taking the condensed matter surface as nearly enough a black body at those wavelengths, when you do the Schwarzschild radiation calculation on radiosonde data, you will find that the thermal radiation from the surface that is absorbed by the atmosphere exceeds back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface by a little fraction. This is because, on the relevant average, the atmosphere is a little cooler than the surface. This applies mainly outside the atmospheric window. This is why, as you say, net radiative transfer from surface to atmosphere plays only a little (you say no) part. As to your (5.): The 14% is mainly window radiation. As to your (6.): Of course you are free to define 'thermal radiation' as you please. As to your general dismissal of my comments, I suggest that, to win the debate, we may do well to allow the warmists their valid parts. That may increase our chances of persuading them about their errors. For us to insist on our own errors will likely lead them to dismiss what we have got right. Perhaps most warmists are of the climatism religion, and are scarcely open to reason. Such is life. At present, that religion is winning hands down in the political sphere. A disaster for us all.
I expect that you probably have not downloaded our essay which is the basis of the presentation. I suggest you try to absorb that content before we continue any discussion. I think that if you actually read the paper, you might rescind at least part of your most recent remarks. Link: tomn.substack.com/api/v1/file/f08770ad-92c4-4884-890b-f969794b1a26.pdf
@ThomasShula Dear Thomas Shula, I have now read your paper and written comments into it in a Microsoft Word document. Your paper is pretty much what I have commented on above, much of it just as in your RU-vid. My views are unchanged. I am not a sceptic. I am a denier. I have studied the matter for about 15 years. I find your article pretentious in part, and naïve, and likely to be unpersuasive to true believers. I think your article will grievously mislead readers who don't know much about the topic. Consequently, overall, I think your paper detrimental to our shared goal of debunking warmism. I am glad that you are reconsidering. I look forward to your revised views.
You insist that only condensed matter emits thermal radiation while gases do not. One can define words as one pleases. To me and many others, it seems odd to insist that radiation from gases be excluded by definition from thermal radiation. Radiation from gases depends largely on their temperatures. Their radiation is determined by several factors, such as their density and chemical constitution. Their temperature is a factor, manifest in what is known as the 'source function', which is a version of Planck's law of thermal radiation. Gases have emissivities and absorptances. Of course, everyone accepts that full black body radiation most often depends on the presence of a black body. Thermal radiation from gases is usually not full black body radiation. To get truly full black body radiation took years of careful experimentation, and was only achieved by the end of the nineteenth century. Practically as soon as it had been achieved, Planck discovered his law of thermal radiation. The Wikipedia definition seems a bit odd to me, when it attributes thermal radiation to the motion of particles in matter. I would say that the radiation comes immediately from the excitation energies of particles themselves, at least in gases, though the energy passes from the collisions of the particles into their excitation energy.
Your comment on the Wikipedia definition only reinforces your expressed lack of understanding on this issue. Perhaps you training in physics is limited. It is important to be precise in the language in these matters. It is in no small part the casual conflation of these processes that has led to the creation of the non-existent GHE.
Your comment on the Wikipedia definition only reinforces your expressed lack of understanding on this issue. Perhaps you training in physics is limited. It is important to be precise in the language in these matters. It is in no small part the casual conflation of these processes that has led to the creation of the non-existent GHE.
@@ThomasShula Dear Thomas Shula, thank you for your response. As for the Wikipedia definition, it seems to confound the Planck distribution for radiation with the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for particles of matter. In local thermodynamic equilibrium, they fit hand-in-glove, but when local thermodynamic equilibrium does not prevail, as for example in the thermosphere, those distributions do not hold. I won't take up your condescending remark about my limited training in physics. But I will reply to your remark about the non-existence of the greenhouse effect. People play around in defining the greenhouse effect. Whether it exists or not depends on how it is defined. Perhaps you will tell me your definition of it. So far, your response has been mainly innuendo that I am ignorant, but you haven't actually presented a reasoned argument.
I’ll try to unpack your comment as politely as I can. Thermal radiation, which idealized is black body radiation, is a property of matter that emits radiation in a continuous spectrum. It primarily applies to condensed matter because in condensed matter the electrons, molecules, and lattices are not restricted to the quantized levels of individual atoms/molecules. In some cases, like the atmosphere of the sun, it can be applied to gases. That’s because the temperature is high enough that the protons and electrons move about independently. A grain of sand or a speck of dust can emit thermal radiation. A free atom or molecule cannot. This is a very old definition. Again, it is far too often misunderstood and/or misapplied. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution applies mostly to the distribution of velocities in the volume of a gas. To your credit, you are one of very few I have encountered that understands LTE is not possible in the troposphere, or any connecting atmosphere for that matter. Regarding the GHE, the simple fact that there is no “official” definition of it should be enough to at least atouse suspicion. I won’t try to define the GHE because it does not exist. Changing the concentration of the so-called GHGs will not cause the temperature of the planet to rise. The facilitate cooling, not hinder it.
@@ThomasShulaThank you for your response. You continue to condescend to me. I didn't say that local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) doesn't hold in the troposphere . I said it doesn't hold in the thermosphere. Up there, sunlight is very important, and gas molecules collide rarely, so that LTE doesn't prevail. In the troposphere, nearly enough, LTE does prevail. I think you are reconsidering your position on this topic?
I enjoyed your presentation, these topics have always interested me. A minor issue is how you pronounce Richard Feynman's name - it should be Fine-man (not Fen-man).
Thank you for your kind comment! These are topics that literally keep me up at night, and I am happy to exchange thoughts with anyone interested. Also, I'll admit to not investigating the accurate pronunciation of Feynmann's name and appreciate the heads-up. 👍
A great RU-vid ! Very impressive. In terms of the IPCC orthodoxy, the equatorial-polar transport process provides negative feedback. Prof. Vinós shows that this negative feedback is very powerful, so powerful as to practically negate any proposed global warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions. In other words, the greenhouse effect stabilizes the climate against such proposed perturbations as man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
Loose a bit of confidence when he uses Parsec incorrectly, a Parsec is 3.26 light years, so 20 Parsec's is only a small distance in our Milkyway (over a hundred thousand light years across) not anything like the distance to another galaxy
I would hope that those watching would have some grace for a live presentation and consider the merits of the items being discussed. Also that with the state of my dome I have few remaining hairs to split! 😄 Details are very important to me, and of course I meant to state tens of MPC (megaparsecs) is the scale at which cosmic redshift becomes measurable, and "trillions of parsecs" in reference to the minimum possible diameter of the total universe after the BB inflationary period. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify!
I'm going to be walking in the shoes of others in my work.. I've asked to join my company's green strategy group. I will be in a group of 7 or 8 people that believe that C02 is the control knob of climate. Wish me luck!
The key point is to stick to the truth according to your understanding. When it comes to policy decisions, there may be room for compromise, in particular when you are in a minority. One example: In order to „kill“ the dogmatic „reduce emissions to zero by 2050“, it is sufficient to accept the mainstream Bern model, because even with the Bern model it is sufficient to reduce emissions by 1% per year in order to achieve stable CO2 concentration (according to the Bern model).
@@videosjoachimdengler7426 My company wants to issue a statement that our customers will find acceptable. Most of our customers will also be firm believers in AGW. There is not a chance in hell that the statement will deviate from the narrative. The reason I have joined the Green Strategy Group is that I want it to be in the minutes of our meetings that there were alternative views to that of the narrative from a member of the group. Also I feel that persons in the group might actually learn something new if I am in the group. I can at least try.
@@eastonjasit is very courageous to join this group in such circumstances. What you can do, is asking questions: E.g. „What is achieved for the customers?“, „what are the side effects of what we do?“, etc. - You know much better the questions that may cause pain.
Every day the oil industry can delay the transition from fossil fuels they make more money. So the cost of creating half truths, lies and deception to sow doubt and mistrust is very worthwhile for them.
I noticed I am not getting any of your recent podcasts on my feed, I am subsribed. Reporting in case you find similar issues reported from other users.
Fascinating that Mallen has now announced (on his RU-vid channel) that he will no longer discuss any issue around "climate" He says it is a direct result of this debate - and its because we are all too stupid to accept his claims. "There is no point discussing this with stupid people" I think someone has very hurty feelings 🤣😂🤣😂
10 points for thinking outside the box, May I recommend the following names for further research….. Pierre-Marie Robitaille (Sky Scholar) - Who shows how the CMB maps are pure nonsense, and mainstream science has got the sun all wrong. Ray Fleming (@rayfleming2053) - Who’s book “The Zero Point Universe” shows how there are no fundamental pulling forces in the universe, only push forces, yes including gravity. Eric J Lerner - Who’s book “The Big Bang never happened” & YT channel further debunks mainstream fundamentalists and proves they are doing anything but science.
Thank you for your comment! A few quick thoughts: My interest in the CMB is largely that it is considered evidence of the homogeneous nature of the universe at grand scales, but my theories are not dependent on it as there are other evidences for that to be the case (large-scale structure, large scale cosmic model predictions, cosmic gravitational background). However, the CMB has been measured from orbit by the Planck satellite program which seems to be at odds with Robitaille's atmospheric theory. It would be interesting to see if he is adequately addressing evidence at all scales and in all places. I believe myself, Ray Flemming, and Einstein would agree that gravity is not an attractive force. We may disagree on why (quantum particle interaction, zero-point field, curved spacetime), but in all cases we agree that the idea gravity is extant and a directly attractive force fails logical scrutiny. Although the Big Bang is the popular cosmological model, my theories are not entirely dependent on it, and I often consider other mechanisms for its genesis or if the universe is in fact eternal as believed a century ago! Although I have my own opinions, that my model based strictly on what observations we can directly make appears to accommodate several cosmic possibilities. It is this Occam's razor use of principles and lack of dependence on scale which I believe is necessary for anything to be true. Stay curious!
At 24:20 - Surely you are referring here to Dark Energy? Dark Matter was invoked to explain the extra gravitation required to hold galaxies together at the the rate at which they rotate.
Thank you for your comment! Although I may conflate the two terms, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are still codependent sides of the same idea. They are both part of the LCDM model and, in my opinion, are "math of the gaps". That we don't directly observe conventional matter at vast distances does not mean it is not there. For example, we still can only speculate at the total contents of the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt being that they are not sufficiently luminated, and they are part of our own solar system. Additionally, it's estimated (not known) that about 15% of the total mass of the Milky Way Galaxy is in the form of interstellar gas and dust. It is my hypothesis that using redshift measurements and the assumption it is the result of a progressive shift in gravitational potential/time dilation, we can produce an estimate of the matter density we should expect to find and see if that correlates with the galactic gravitational effects we currently observe. A falsifiable hypothesis requiring no unproven principles. If you or anyone you know is familiar with such computations, be sure to hit me up!
At 34:01 he makes a mistake saying that the gravity at the center of a sphere increases as you add mass to the sphere. The gravitational field at the center of a sphere is 0 since all the masses are symmetrical about the center of a sphere and thus cancel each other out. I think he is confusing this situation with Newton's demonstration that the gravitational force measured OUTSIDE of a sphere can calculated correctly by assuming that all the mass of a sphere is concentrated at the center.
You are correct that, at the center of the sphere, the slope of gravity/time dilation would be 0. And that is exactly why I'm excited to respond to your comment in particular! Say that you are positioned directly between two black holes (close enough to be notable). As you have accurately stated, there would be no gradient to gravitational potential, so the space at that point would only experience microgravitational effects. However, at that point between the two black holes, your gravitational potential is lower than a point some distance away from this hypothetical binary. The rate of movement for photons is slower than those outside of this zone. What I am referring to as gravitational influence at the center of a sphere of plural masses (not the center point of one mass) is the gravitational potential at its center and how that potential changes depending on the quantity of spheres, or as the area of consideration changes for an integrated range of distances. Equate the distance with time and that results in a linear trend since the beginning of the universe! Thank you for your insightful comment!
"Everything in science needs to be doubted" I have news for you, that is exactly what scientists do. That is why big money is spent on expensive experiments with satellites, accelerators, gravity wave detectors, etc, etc. There is huge theoretical efforts made in all kinds of directions. The fact that scientists may not have hit on a theory, about whatever, that works well everywhere does not indicate that scientists have all fixated on some unfounded belief or other. I totally reject the notion presented here that scientists, specifically physicists here, have accepted some religious dogma and built a wall around their holy temple. Quite the contrary. Having said that, there is shenanigans going on here and there in science, like every other human endeavour. And especially among people around the science (as opposed to actually in it), especially when there is big money and political power at stake.
I believe you've made my argument for me. 😄 Even Einstein showed his dogma by stating his refusal to accept finite universe theories despite his own cosmological constant crisis implying that an eternal universe is impossible. We all have beliefs, including the common belief that scientists are not protective of their own theories. But political pressure can certainly be part of it. A few years after being told directly by a NASA project manager that anthropogenic global warming did not exist with temperature variations clearly fit other natural trends, Al Gore conveniently produced an entirely non-scientific film that compelled world governments to commit economy-killing resources to a wholly non-extant problem. Nowadays you probably can't work at NASA without toeing the "climate change" line. I find it unfortunate that to date I've yet to speak with a single individual who is willing to address reasonable questions I have regarding their own theories or willing to use their knowledge or skills to apply sincere scrutiny to any of my own. I'll admit to having little reach and few acquaintances with interest or aptitude in this field, so maybe you can be the first! 😉
@@WhetScience I'm pretty certain you are wrong about Einstein. He famously said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". He reversed his opinion on the cosmological constant calling it the "biggest blunder" of his life. Clearly he was into the scientific method, open to being refuted, not dogma. You will hear this kind of thing from most scientists. For example list to the very respected physicist Leonard Suskind talking on such things here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5JtzDueKX_Q.html. Read the views of Dirac, Feynman and many others. Heck all the way back to Newton who said of his gravitational theory that he offers no explanation as to why the formulae worked. You say scientists are "protective" of their own theories. That is the wrong word. Sure if someone has done a lot of work on a theory and come up with something interesting one is going to try and defend the idea. Not out of an attempt to protect a belief but to push the theory forward either further demonstrating its predictive value or showing it does not work. That is perfectly natural, acceptable and what the scientific method is all about. Also quite often scientists come up with predictions from their maths that they don't even like. Many don't like the randomness of Quantum mechanics for example. Now, when it comes to so called "climate science" much of what you criticise there is not the actual science. You are right, there are layers and layers of self interested business and politicians between the actual science and what the public ends up being brain washed with. Even without that we are in no position to determine the truth or otherwise of any of it. We cannot do the experiment. By that I mean the questions of: Is the climate going to change? Which way will it change (hotter, colder, better, worse)? Is CO2 going to cause the change, by how much? Is man the major cause of climate change or not? Should we do something about it? Will what we try to do actually work? Or will it inadvertently make things worse? And so on,, and so on. We cannot do the experiment to prove/disprove any of that, we only have one Earth, we can only live on it once. I that way I would argue that climate science is not science at all. There is almost no sound mathematical theory to predict anything (Only suspect computer models). There is no experiment we can do to prove/disprove any of it. How can "climate science" then be subject to the rigours of the scientific method? I argue it can not. What worries me is that all this undermines the normal persons trust in science. This is very dangerous as the modern world survives my science not mysticism and belief. Which is why I find you statement "We all have beliefs, including the common belief that scientists are not protective of their own theories." disturbs me. See, "What exactly is the scientific method and why do so many people get it wrong?"" hpi.uq.edu.au/article/2016/09/what-exactly-scientific-method-and-why-do-so-many-people-get-it-wrong#:~:text=As%20Albert%20Einstein%20famously%20said,experiment%20can%20prove%20me%20wrong.
@@ThomasShula Rephrasing in the form of a question, Have upward looking spectrometers observed "back radiation" at 15 micron ? Possible answer is that they have but it is very low intensity due to the low temperature. I guess an example of this is CO2 absorption lines are detected at room temps/pressure, CO2 emission lines are observed in flames. To detect emission lines at room temps would require cooling the detector. Thanks
Thanks for the clarification. My apologies for the lateness of this reply. I’ve been on a short holiday with F&F and I’ve only had bits of time here and there. In the meantime, I was able to locate Petty’s book. I’ve not seen it before, and I’m grateful that you pointed it out. The other text that I’m familiar with is much older. Thermalization reduces the spontaneous emission of the various so-called GHGs by 4 to 5 orders of magnitude near the surface. There is still spontaneous emission from collisional excitation occurring, but at a greatly reduced rate. Most of those excited states will also be thermalized. The photons that are emitted will travel as much as a few meters before they are reabsorbed, and if there is a detector in the way there is a high probability that many of them will be observed in the detector. They are, however short lived and will be quickly reabsorbed in the lower troposphere. Looking at the spectra, we see rotational band water vapor emission in both cases at the high wavelength end on the left. In the downward looking case it is cut off, probably because of some instrumental limitation. This water vapor band completely overlaps the 15 micron CO2 band, and in fact peaks near the center of the CO2 band. The water vapor bands are effectively the same magnitude whether you are looking up or down, because the spontaneous emission induced by collisional excitation will be in random directions. It is slightly higher looking, probably because the concentration is still much higher at the surface in arctic night than at 20km. For the downward looking detector, we see the typical spectrum in the literature. When the water emissions start to overlap the CO2 band, the CO2 absorbs the radiation from H2O in that part of the spectrum. The CO2 will then be thermalized, and the energy recycled into the pool of gas. There is the tiny CO2 emission peak because there will always be a population of CO2 molecules that can spontaneously emit by the mechanisms already explained. In the spectrum looking up from the surface, that is, the component of the radiation directed downward, there are a number of factors that come into play. First, thermalization is incomplete. In the first few meters above the surface some molecules will experience photon absorption/spontaneous emission transitions due to surface emissions. That is probably a measurable contribution. Second, there is a temperature dependence for excitation. The radiative transfer models attribute it to photon absorption and emission according to a Planck like distribution (“blackbody”) function. It can also be explained by thermally excited emission, which has a temperature dependent component. In slide 21 of our presentation we explain this temperature dependence for the CO2 excitation. The gas molecule energies have energies following a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. The fraction of molecules with sufficient energy to excite the CO2 vibration are 1.3% at -53C (mesopause), 3% at 15C, and 4% at 30C. This means that there will be considerably more thermally excited emission near the surface compared to the cooler high atmosphere. The rate of thermal excitation near the surface will be 2-3 times greater. Many of these thermally excited molecules will emit photons and will be detected. For water vapor, which has a much broader emission band at lower energies the fraction of molecules in the atmosphere that can excite them is much higher. It is important to remember that the these photons are produced from thermal excitation (collisions) using energy that is effectively “recycled” from the heat pool of the atmosphere. They don’t not contribute to any net heating or cooling of the surface. It is the downwelling component of a process that is radiating in all directions. Also, because of the rapid attenuation in these bands, it is produced only in the first few meters of the atmosphere above the surface. My interpretation of the upward looking spectrum that you referred to is that due to the higher thermal excitation rates near the surface plus the excitation driven by the upwelling surface radiation, the abundant water vapor bands are being saturated. The CO2 is absorbing some surface radiation as well, but it will also absorb the emissions from water vapor that overlap the Q-branch at 667/cm as well as the rotational side bands. This can saturate the CO2 band as well. It is still generated by thermal energy from the atmosphere, so there is no net change to the atmospheric energy. There is an interesting paper essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/4303/2021/essd-13-4303-2021.pdf Where they measure downwelling radiation on a mountain peak where water vapor concentrations are very low, and the same phenomenon is observed. I think that as long as the measurements are made by an upward looking instrument in the troposphere this will be observed. A couple of related comments. As much as we hear that “water is the most important greenhouse gas” narrative, in the general discussion it has become nothing more than a platitude. This is unfortunate. As our work shows, it is the only so-called GHG that matters. It is overwhelmingly abundant relative to the others, and it has much broader absorption/emission bands. At this point I have read much of the relevant chapters in the Petty text. I also searched the book for various terms including “thermalization”, “non-radiative”, and others looking for any reference to non-radiative mechanisms for excitation and deexcitation of the IR active species. This further reinforces my observation that while those who tout radiative transfer models will also give lip service to some of these non-radiative processes, they do not take them into account in their models, meaning they either do not understand the impact or they don’t believe they are relevant. I hope this answers your question, and if you have others I’ll do my best to respond as time allows.
@@ThomasShula Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions. I really am trying to understand. I believe I understand your explanation of the upward looking observations, Maxwell/Boltzman. However, Petty provides a Planck function curve at surface temperature that fits the data quite well. Could this be caused by something in the optical path serving as a black body source i.e. window or beam splitter (I don't think the mirrors could), and ambient air, containing water vapor and CO2, is absorbing the radiation before reaching the detector ? If this is true, would the few tiny spikes appearing above the ambient temperature Planck curve be the H2O/CO2 emissions ? Thanks again for your time and patience.
Happy to respond, Bill. It’s an insightful question but the answer is pretty straightforward. The kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the air follow a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. I failed to mention in my earlier comment it is quite similar in shape to the Planck distribution of thermal radiation. It should not be surprising, then, that it has a shape similar to the Planck curve. Does that make sense?
Presumably if there is an obligation on states to "take all necessary action" to protect the environment from man's emmissions; given that China is the biggest emmiter then these states are obligated to change the regime in China.
It seems that many of these conventions, resolutions and courts findings use words that are open to interpretation in the future. For instance "take all necessary actions" - who decides what all the actions are and how do they decide? The same for "necessary". The people involved are just snouts in the trough of our money, narsacistic in the extreme, believing that they should control the world.
Very interesting. Severin has demonstrated how "international courts" have and continue to try to invent "laws". When did you and I vote for these interpretations of what are "human rights"? This just shows how important democracy is. Laws, conventions and treaties are just agreements that certain behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable (and therefore to be sanctioned). These "International courts" have no legitimacy. A British politician(Tony Benn) laid out 5 questions to ask of them to establish their legitimacy: 1. What power have you got? 2. Where did you get it from? 3. In whose interests do you exercise it? 4. To whom are you accountable? 5. How can we get rid of you?
