RealClimate logo

The Crank Shaft

Filed under: — group @ 11 March 2019

This is a thread for collecting the oddball theories, tinfoil hat level conspiracies and other climate-related nonsense in the comments that would otherwise derail substantive discussion. Keeping them all in one spot might be of interest to future researchers.

12 Responses to “The Crank Shaft”

  1. 1
    bob says:

    The skeptical sciences links do not prove anything: what is the proof of greenhouse theory according to them ?

    The moon is colder at night than during the day and warmer than the earth during the day.

    So they do not even notice that the atmosphere is actually cooling the Earth and not warming it, and making it warmer at night than the moon, not because of greenhouse gases, but because it has an atmosphere created by gravity, retaining the warmth at night by blocking conduction and advection into space, contrary to the moon which has no atmosphere and no or very little conduction taking place.

    It is the same argument they have that the following one: “Without greenhouse gases, the temperature of the Earth would be -18°C and not 15°C”…

    That is an experimental evidence…?

    Ha ha ha… And how do they measure the temperature of the Earth in the first place ?

    I’m telling you: this is not an experimental evidence, it is a theoretical non sense.

    They indeed consider that the Earth has the same radiative absorption than a black hole and thus is a perfect black body… and so they apply the blackbody formulas to calculate the temperature of the Earth from the emissivity coming from the sun…

    And they find -18°C… But it is physical non-sense. The Earth is not a black hole and blackbody formulas can not apply for its absorption and thus can not apply in order to find its temperature from the solar emissivity.

    So the whole greenhouse theory is just physical non sense, a pure myth without any valid justification, even theoretically.

  2. 2
    bob says:

    Isn’t it very ironic that the GIEC, Nobel Prize of Peace, does not see that it is war that caused the warming plateau in 1935-1945, with all the bombings and so forth…?

    And the peak in 1945 is due to Hirochima and Nagasaki. Then, the cooling of -0,3°C comes just after the end of war when the heat caused by the bombings dissipated…

    …before the “Great Warming” associated with the industrialiaztion of nuclear power plants, increased global deforesttation and the numerous atomic bombings trials all over the world.

    For example, between 1960 -1996, 200 atomic bombings were made just by France. How many at word scale ?

    The GIEC should have better deserved the Nobel Prize of Litterature for his fictional masterpiece of “radiative forcing”… !

  3. 3
    bob says:

    Not only do climate scientists in a mission, those who are teleguided by an ideal and not by reason, build a radiative budget that has no theoretical foundation, based on a mixture of satellites data and models data, but they do not even see that the global mean temperature predicted by their radiative budget is totally crank !

    If you look at it closely, and it is quite odd, the global mean temperature, according to their budget, would be near the ebullition point, somewhere like 90°C… and they do not even notice it, so blind that they are in their faith of 1) thermal transfer caused by trace gases (never been measured anywhere in the world in a lab), 2) their blackhole-like Earth absorptive equilibrium and 3) their ideal of science as a mission to save the planet from CO2.

    No wonder that with a global mean temperature of 90°C+, some desoxygenation should take place at the surface of the ocean in their model. Ha Ha Ha.

    They are litteraly cooking ocean fishes in the IPCC reports.

    Here what happens when people confound radiation and heat, and build a (litterally) obscurantist view of light-matter interaction like Fourier did with his “obscure heat” theory at the origin of the radiative greenhouse theory.

    Herschel has been clear enough nonetheless by pointing out the dangers of that confusion in several articles published in 1800.

    The “magnifying glass effect” of a prism, like the one of solar boxes should not be confounded with a “radiant” or “obscure” heat. No such magnifying glass effect concentrating radiation on a point exist in the atmosphere, which is gently diffusing the light, thus the blue color of the sky.

  4. 4
    bob says:

    Climate scientists did not learn physics in school.

    Otherwise they would know that infrared energy obeys to the inverse square law.

    In physics lessons, real scientists learn to trace on paper the linear relationship between an infrared source and a thermopile, which is proportional to the distance between them.

    Just several centimeters are sufficient to show a significant decrease in thermal transfer between an infrared source and a thermopile.

    Thus, it is real non sense to think that infrared radiation bouncing back from atmosphère to the ground is able to warm the surface.

  5. 5
    bob says:

    Now, I’m goint to tell you what climate scientists really believe without even knowing it…

    They believe that the troposphere has a convergent effect on the infrared radiation emitted by the ground, which, at the manner of a laser beam, selectively focus on some traces molecules, like CO2, warming the atmosphere as a consequence… Ha Ha Ha Ha

    I call it the “climatic conscious laser beam” theory. Because infrared energy, moved by some intelligent intents, consciously and selectively concentrate on some traces molecules, therefore causing a heat transfer in the air, like mini nuke quakes.

    Imagine the red laser beams from the TIE interceptors in Star Wars, but just sending their energy to trace molecules: Pew Pew Pew Pew….

    Or imagine it like an army of millions of tiny convergent mirrors on the ground selectively converging many many infrared red beams like the Death Star, just to trace molecules, with the devil intent to warm the atmosphere: Tchiieeewwwwwwwww

    This is what the GIEC believes, implicitely… right ? Otherwise I do not see how infrared energy could warm the atmosphere. Ha Ha Ha

  6. 6
    bob says:

    It is not by chance that, historically, “cold war” is name cold.

    People who did the war (and not the politicians who send people do the war) know that bombings are warming the climate.

    But paradoxically, it is when the “cold war” began that the war on environment took the relay: deforestation, agrochimy and nuclear industry boomed and were even more efficient at warming the climate than the war between human beings.

    But those are things that the believers in “obscure heat” do not seem to be able to understand.

  7. 7
    bob says:

    This new post is the one in which the reader learns that conduction is the preferential way of dissipating its energy for matter.

    And if there is no possibility of conduction, like in space for example, then matter dissipates its energy through radiation.

    How is that ?

    Well it is simple: heat transfer is the result of an electric process in matter (Peltier Effect). And in the empty space, there is no possibility of such transfer, thus the electric process “radiates” instead, in the form of electromagnetic energy.

    So matter will first transmit its energy through conduction, or through convection and advection into gazes.

    So it is the energetic pressure that conditions how much the matter will radiate. And if there is too much pressure, the matter may even explode !

    But no worry, with infrared energy, no risk that the air explode, as it can not even produce normal convection or advection: it is not enough energetic to produce any heat transfer and it is instantly reemitted without causing any heat in the atmosphere: it is totally neutral.

  8. 8
    bob says:

    What climate scientists don’t tell you, because they don’t know and only stay at the surface of their beliefs, at the very supercial level of real scientific investigation is that:

    A “significant” heat transfer, which is associated with an electric process, can only occur when two molecules of gases collide… and it also depends on the difference of electric potential between the two molecules, thus of the electric field of those molecules.

    It is the “deformation” of the electric fields of the molecules, forming a new electric field, when they collide, that produce an electric effect causing heat transfer.

    Thus, two molecules of same charge colliding are just going to repel each other without any heat transfer.

    When there is a difference in electric potential, the collision between the two molecules is equivalent to a conduction between the two molecules, and the heat transfer is proportional to the difference in their electric potential.

    So we are here speaking of very insignificant heat transfers caused by so-called GHG, at the volume of the atmosphere. The first (and way beyond) ways of heat transfer in the atmosphere are convection and advection mechanisms which are derived from sol/air conduction and their variations, and other forms of heat like volcanos, atomic and conventional bombings, nuclear power plants, combustion engines and barbecues.

    As the thermal equilibrium of such microscopic entities (the reorganization of the electric field of the molecules of gases), is instantaneous, they, as blackbodies, should reemit instantly without any heat transfer (no time for waiting the next collision with another molecule) the low energetic infrared energy they receive from their environment.

    So there is no significant conduction, no significant heat transfer induced by infrared energy absorbed by so-called GHG in the atmosphere.

  9. 9
    bob says:

    The “Bohr Hole” is a better name than the “ghost photon” theory… for the idea that photons pass through the molecules, when they do not have the exact same energy than the ones of the atomic orbitals…

    Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Hi Hi

  10. 10
    bob says:

    In fact, according to the “Bohr Hole” theory, photons that are absorbed by molecules are reemitted, yes, but in another universe of the great multiverse, like for black holes, or even in another location in the same universe.

    It is what explains the non locality of quantum mechanics.

    When you heat sufficiently those molecules, it opens up one such tunnel, and they can emit at the same energy, but the energy that is emitted comes from another place in the universe or even from another universe.

  11. 11
    bob says:

    Real physics from RW Wood as cited by Niels Bohr in 1913:

    “Now in Wood’s experiments the pressure was not very low, and the states corresponding to high values for teta could therefore not appear ; yet in the absorption spectrum about 50 lines were detected. In the experiments in question we consequently observe an absorption of radiation which is not accompanied by a complete transition between two different stationary states. According to the present theory we must assume that this absorption is followed by an emission of energy during which the systems pass back to tile original stationary state. If there are no collisions between the different systems this energy will be emitted as a radiation of the same frequency as that absorbed, and there will be no true absorption but only a scattering of the original radiation ; a true absorption will not occur unless the energy in question is transformed by collisions into kinetic energy of free particles.”

    Ho Ho Ho Ha Ha Ha Hi Hi

  12. 12
    bob says:

    I repeat what Bohr said:

    “a true absorption will not occur unless the energy in question is transformed by collisions into kinetic energy of free particles.”

    “and there will be no true absorption but only a scattering of the original radiation”

    Consequence: As the pressure in the atmosphere is very low, so there are very little collisions. Thus there is no significant transformation of radiative energy into kinetic energy or “true absorption” leading to thermal transfers.

    Whatever is the path one takes to observe the phenomenas, kinetic, electric, quantic and so on, the GHG theory is wrong, inherently, irrevocably wrong.