I have asked that exact question, but never found good information on point. I am highly skeptical that our Sun's output is constant over time. However the AGW advocates maintain that it is.

I've got another observation based on thermodynamic fundamentals. You know how the AGW's like to trot out those global temperature maps regularly showing how much hotter we've gotten? Well, they're pretty much meaningless because they don't show what's really important.
When one speaks about "warming" the use of temperature as an indicator is only useful in certain situations. Heat content or enthalpy, as represented by heat / mass, is the more accurate and proper measurement to be used especially when talking about relative warming or cooling. Temperature can be a proxy for heat content when used in a well mixed system. But the atmosphere is anything but a well mixed system. Most significantly, in addition to temperature, there are constant variations in composition and pressure. And of those, water content, aka humidity, is the most important. For example, if you look at given mass of air at 50F and 50% RH its heat content is actually greater than the same mass of air at 55F and 25% RH. And yet, if you compare just temperatures in this example, you would conclude a massive 5F increase in warming has occurred.
In relating this to climate change, I've searched the NASA and NOAA sites for information on how they account for humidity in any of their data sets but I have found nothing.I've been in touch recently with a Professor of Atmospheric Science.who confirmed that RH is not accounted for in various models except as estimates on a global scale.
As such, every time I see one of those global depictions I shake my head and wonder what kind of education you need to become a "Climate Scientist." Certainly not one that involves basic Thermodynamics.

From what I have read and watched some documentaries that astronomers classify our Sun as a variable star. So, how could any scientist set the the output as a constant. It doesn't make any sense.

Unfortunately it is foolish as the environmental movement wants over 95% of the human population dead and the rest left without any technology.

Yes that is a good model. Ultimately, a cold body warming up a warm body would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As I recall, in the mid-'70's, during the "energy crisis", there was not so much talk about the evil
of industry and its causing "pollution" as previously.
Let those elitist environmentalists have to go through some of the deprivation that their ideology
(or idiotology) would cause, and then maybe,
just maybe, they'd shut up. (But that's a foolish
dream; they'd just find a way to turn it around
and escape the blame for what they had promoted).

Now I may be off as I went through Navy Nuclear Power school in 1983. The course is strong in Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow along with Chemistry, Physics and Thermodynamics. Of course it is classified so I have no notes, just the little tidbits that adhered to the grey matter in my skull. I agree with mminnick, I may rusty also but the point he made is what I remember from those classes a couple of lifetimes ago. I read the article and the terminology is mostly correct but the positions held by the author are so out of whack that he would have been failed in those classes.

Actually this may be the better talk on point by Hans Schantz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWmYz...

I was not talking about photons, but the article did.

I thought the article got a little glib here

"How does a photon from a cool spectrum source “know” not to travel to and warm up a warmer source? It is because a photon is effectively outside of space and time.
Start thinking of what life as a photon must be like, if you were a photon, travelling at the speed of light, and wrap your head around that."

One of the most interesting lectures on light I have seen Hans Schantz, who is an Objectivist. He talks from the perspective of ElectroMagnetics, but his ideas have implications for the pilot wave theory of light. He is an technology entrepreneur in the antenna space. I think this is the lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ns2J...

You were talking about photons at the end of your discussion. The one exception to what you said about photons is when photons are confined in spaces with dimensions of < 200 nm.

I am not sure exactly how that applies, but post your powerpoint presentation.

This is one of those problems, in my opinion, where thinking microscopically is better than microscopically. Microscopically, heat always goes from hot to cold not the other way. If heat energy could go from cold to hot it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics


I found these ideas so important I have started double and triple checking them and will probably write an article on point, which I hope is even more clear.

My physics is a little rusty but I think it goes something like this.
1. The photons and electromagnetic energy released by a cold object have less energy than a worm body. Think of it in terms of light. a bright light has more energy than a dim light. When this energy (photons, EM waves) impact on the warmer body) they receive energy from the hot body, thus cooling the hotbody and slightly increasing the energy of the cold body particles and EM waves. This has the effect of cooling the hotbody and potentially increasing the energy (heat) of the cold body depending upon the backscatter and reflection of the photons and EM waves.
Just a guess mind you, but perhaps close enough.

I am not sure, except I think they so want it to be true that the mistakes are not literally on purpose. Of course they do not give a damn that they are wrong in the end.

Thanks to dbh for introducing this article.
I do not have the patience to study this in enough detail to give a considered opinion.
I'd like to see experimental results.

I do observe tho' that the hot-spot has not been found despite extensive search.

If greenhouses gases are warming the planet, such warming will happen first in the upper troposphere, the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It is real cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All the alarmist climate models predict warming there first— it is the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming as opposed to warming by some other cause.

The fact that no hot-spot has been found, is strong evidence against the proposition of a greenhouse effect, either from human activity or from nature.

The alarmists are seriously worried by this as can be seen by convoluted explanations of the kind- more snow due to global warming.


http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-...

http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-...

Quite correct, db. Happy New Year to you and Kh. The timing of this for me was perfect. I was preparing a talk for next Tuesday night on the changes that confining an electron to a small space causes, as well as the applications that open up as a result.

Good article Dale. It makes me wonder who searched through Thermodynamics for terms and definitions they could redefine to suit their purposes, just as they redefine perfectly understood and centuries old English words and sentence structures.

There is so much of this type of 'garbage' throughout Climate Change 'science', that brings into question the credentials and intelligence of any science or tech type that pretends to support their nonsense.

Hi J,

I have now found several of these articles and they make perfect sense to me - statistical mechanics is not my strongest area. Bottom line the whole radiative green house effect is nonsense. The hottest possible temperature on Earth would be the blackbody temperature on the surface.

I have been collecting the information and thinking about reformatting it in the way I think is the most logical and persuasive. If I ever write that post perhaps I should run it past you first.

The heat transfer analysis in this article is correct. The comments about photons are true only for cases where the photons are not in confined spaces (i.e. unless the photon excites a nanoparticle). When a photon excites a nanoparticle, the nanoparticle boundaries act somewhat like a wall for either an electron or a photon. This is the so-called "quantum effect" and is the whole reason for the "particle-in-a-box" analysis that is common in Physical Chemistry 2 courses.