2014 hottest year on record

Exactly. The heat comes from your body, but of course the energy ultimately comes from the calories in the food you eat. In order to stay the same temperature without sweating, you would have to go to a colder environment because the greater the temperature difference, the faster the flow of heat from warm to cold.

What happens is this: when you first put on the coat, your body is generating the same amount of heat as before but you are losing less, so the heat builds up inside and your temperature rises. Neglecting your internal thermostat for a moment, you wouldn't continue to warm indefinitely because your rate of heat loss increases as the temperature difference increases. Eventually your temperature stabilizes when the outbound heat flow rate balances the rate at which your body generates heat.

But you don't have more energy in the system than you put it; you end up with more in it because you have, at least for a time, been releasing less than you have put in.

Also correct. In the case of the Earth, the "heat" is coming from the Sun, in the form of (mostly) shortwave radiation, which is still being received at about the same rate regardless of how much CO2 you pump into the atmosphere.

Impeding convection won't keep the planet from cooling itself, since very little energy is lost to space that way anyway. But CO2 and other GHGs do in fact "trap" thermal radiation - at certain wavelengths in the IR. Since the only way the planet can cool itself is by radiation, for a given surface temperature this does slow down the rate of cooling.

Then why is Earth's surface temperature close to 15C instead of -18?

The only thing claiming the Earth should be -18F is an equation that obviously doesn't work for the Moon, Earth and every other celestial body in the solar system. There are other reasons why, already discussed, these bodies are warmer than expected other than a fictitious Greenhouse effect.

So, CHG's "trap" IR. For what length of time? Is this the main reason for the warming, prohibiting radiative cooling? The Earths' atmosphere is surrounded by space, a vacuum. Which means radiative cooling is going to be very slow. Yet another reason to be warmer than expected, just like your thermos. Space craft have a difficult time shedding heat because of this. Do CHG's also bounce IR back and forth to the surface further warming the surface? Is this to and fro of IR from CHG's to the surface a major or minor factor?
 
The only thing claiming the Earth should be -18F is an equation that obviously doesn't work for the Moon, Earth and every other celestial body in the solar system. There are other reasons why, already discussed, these bodies are warmer than expected other than a fictitious Greenhouse effect.

So, CHG's "trap" IR. For what length of time? Is this the main reason for the warming, prohibiting radiative cooling? The Earths' atmosphere is surrounded by space, a vacuum. Which means radiative cooling is going to be very slow. Yet another reason to be warmer than expected, just like your thermos. Space craft have a difficult time shedding heat because of this. Do CHG's also bounce IR back and forth to the surface further warming the surface? Is this to and fro of IR from CHG's to the surface a major or minor factor?

I'm with you. The Greenhouse Effect (whatever it is exactly) of carbon dioxide on atmospheric temperature has been greatly exaggerated.
 
The problem is people, not religion, not science, not economics, not politics, not guns... The root of all problems mankind faces is people, we prefer greed, we have no faith except in what we can buy with money.

Humans tend to be greedy and selfish but that's reality and I'm just trying to live the best I can in this imperfect world.
 
Exactly. The heat comes from your body, but of course the energy ultimately comes from the calories in the food you eat. In order to stay the same temperature without sweating, you would have to go to a colder environment because the greater the temperature difference, the faster the flow of heat from warm to cold.

What happens is this: when you first put on the coat, your body is generating the same amount of heat as before but you are losing less, so the heat builds up inside and your temperature rises. Neglecting your internal thermostat for a moment, you wouldn't continue to warm indefinitely because your rate of heat loss increases as the temperature difference increases. Eventually your temperature stabilizes when the outbound heat flow rate balances the rate at which your body generates heat.

But you don't have more energy in the system than you put it; you end up with more in it because you have, at least for a time, been releasing less than you have put in.

Also correct. In the case of the Earth, the "heat" is coming from the Sun, in the form of (mostly) shortwave radiation, which is still being received at about the same rate regardless of how much CO2 you pump into the atmosphere.

Impeding convection won't keep the planet from cooling itself, since very little energy is lost to space that way anyway. But CO2 and other GHGs do in fact "trap" thermal radiation - at certain wavelengths in the IR. Since the only way the planet can cool itself is by radiation, for a given surface temperature this does slow down the rate of cooling.

Then why is Earth's surface temperature close to 15C instead of -18?

Hard to see how CO2 traps IR, since it re-radiates ( or scatters) the IR immediately. Seems like a pretty good conduit for radiative cooling. No way any back radiation will warm the surface. The Eart is warmer ( more excited state) and radiates IR in a certain wavelength. The CHG's in the atmosphere are cooler and will accept this radiation. The CHG's, since they are cooler and in a less excited state, will remit radiation in a different wavelength which will not be accepted by the warmer body. Again, no way to transfer heat from a cooler body (atmospher) to a warmer body ( Earth). Please don't talk about this NET exchange nonsense. You can't transfer heat from cold to warm without any external work, eg. a refrigerator.
 
Hard to see how CO2 traps IR, since it re-radiates ( or scatters) the IR immediately. Seems like a pretty good conduit for radiative cooling. No way any back radiation will warm the surface. The Eart is warmer ( more excited state) and radiates IR in a certain wavelength. The CHG's in the atmosphere are cooler and will accept this radiation. The CHG's, since they are cooler and in a less excited state, will remit radiation in a different wavelength which will not be accepted by the warmer body. Again, no way to transfer heat from a cooler body (atmospher) to a warmer body ( Earth). Please don't talk about this NET exchange nonsense. You can't transfer heat from cold to warm without any external work, eg. a refrigerator.

I suspect you have a background in science or engineering. I'm betting on engineering.
 
I suspect you have a background in science or engineering. I'm betting on engineering.

Neither. It's not hard for a layman to debate a scientist who believes in MMGW since they aren't really using science. That is why when prominent non scientist skeptics, who are much more knowledgeable than I, challenge climate scientists to a public debate they decline.

Recommended reading, "Slaying the Sky Dragon. "
 
The only thing claiming the Earth should be -18F is an equation that obviously doesn't work for the Moon, Earth and every other celestial body in the solar system. There are other reasons why, already discussed, these bodies are warmer than expected other than a fictitious Greenhouse effect.
The only bodies that I know of in the solar system with surfaces that are warmer than predicted by that equation are Venus, the Earth, Mars (only slightly) and Titan. The Moon is not one of them. The Moon's average surface temperature is as predicted - provided you do the average the correct way.

So, CHG's "trap" IR. For what length of time?
It's on the order of microseconds - something like 15 or so. Long enough that most excited CO2 molecules transfer most of that energy to other molecules in the atmosphere through collisions and then emit a photon with lower energy than the one they absorbed.
Is this the main reason for the warming, prohibiting radiative cooling?
Yes.
The Earths' atmosphere is surrounded by space, a vacuum. Which means radiative cooling is going to be very slow. Yet another reason to be warmer than expected, just like your thermos.
No. Thermal radiation is emitted at the same rate regardless of the surrounding environment.
Space craft have a difficult time shedding heat because of this.
Not sure about that one, but a spacecraft's ability to shed heat by radiation is not affected by being surrounded by a vacuum. Photons travel just fine through space. Interplanetary spacecraft need electric heaters as well as insulation to slow heat loss from the interior to the outside. In the vacuum of space, the only heat sink is radiative cooling.
Do CHG's also bounce IR back and forth to the surface further warming the surface? Is this to and fro of IR from CHG's to the surface a major or minor factor?
As I said, I'm not sure of the answer to that yet. It's not "bouncing back and forth" though, that would obviously have zero net effect. You can find a diagram of the planet's heat budget here. (The chart also includes the heat budget of the atmosphere, btw.)
 
When and how? Science's biggest, most expensive experiment set at the LHC failed at that miserably. Both models that disproved God we're not accurate, the Higgs measurement came in halfway between the super symmetric universe model and the chaotic multiverse model. It came in indicating a super symmetric multiverse, but nobody is looking for that because that indicates against random occurrence.

Physicists have not yet come upon the relationship of space and time being a dynamic interaction, time in motion through space traveling at the speed of light functioning as the carrier wave for life. They also haven't come upon the nature of life being a duality, much as light. Same as a photon is partical and wave, life is similar, only life is information and energy.
The division of disciplines in science is a bit of a problem in being able to see the forest for the trees, but we really should have done a better job of understanding by now since we have developed all the required data, we just refuse to interpret it correctly. Religion had the exact same problem.

God thinks we can make it, I bet against it. As long as I keep up my end of the bet though, I win either way, so WTF, I'm on the ride, maybe we do make it.

BTW, Einstien was wrong on one more thing, God does roll dice. By nature God is a degenerate gambler.

I heard Hawkings say it on the DVD series he has out. As I remember it, something to the effect that the Universe started from nothing, so nothing was required to start it. God is just a creation of our minds that we need to make sense of everything. At least that is how I remember it. If you can wrap your mind around that.
 
Hard to see how CO2 traps IR, since it re-radiates ( or scatters) the IR immediately. Seems like a pretty good conduit for radiative cooling.
See #768. It's long enough to transfer most of the energy to other molecules in the atmosphere.
No way any back radiation will warm the surface. The Eart is warmer ( more excited state) and radiates IR in a certain wavelength. The CHG's in the atmosphere are cooler and will accept this radiation. The CHG's, since they are cooler and in a less excited state, will remit radiation in a different wavelength which will not be accepted by the warmer body. Again, no way to transfer heat from a cooler body (atmospher) to a warmer body ( Earth). Please don't talk about this NET exchange nonsense. You can't transfer heat from cold to warm without any external work, eg. a refrigerator.
We've been through this already. Unless you talk about net exchange, you are going to wind up with nonsense. It's only the net exchange that constitutes heat flow. Microscopic transfer of energy doesn't count. On the microscopic scale there are transfers of energy from cooler objects to warmer objects going on all the time. An individual warm air molecule can gain energy from an interaction with a water molecule in a cold glass of water, but there will be many, many more interactions in which the energy transfer goes the other way.

In the same way, a warm body can receive one, or many, photons radiated by a cooler one. There is no physical law being violated by that and it does not constitute heat flow. Because rate of thermal radiation is governed by temperature, there will be many, many more photons going the other way.
 
The only bodies that I know of in the solar system with surfaces that are warmer than predicted by that equation are Venus, the Earth, Mars (only slightly) and Titan. The Moon is not one of them. The Moon's average surface temperature is as predicted - provided you do the average the correct way.


It's on the order of microseconds - something like 15 or so. Long enough that most excited CO2 molecules transfer most of that energy to other molecules in the atmosphere through collisions and then emit a photon with lower energy than the one they absorbed.

Yes.

No. Thermal radiation is emitted at the same rate regardless of the surrounding environment.

Not sure about that one, but a spacecraft's ability to shed heat by radiation is not affected by being surrounded by a vacuum. Photons travel just fine through space. Interplanetary spacecraft need electric heaters as well as insulation to slow heat loss from the interior to the outside. In the vacuum of space, the only heat sink is radiative cooling.

As I said, I'm not sure of the answer to that yet. It's not "bouncing back and forth" though, that would obviously have zero net effect. You can find a diagram of the planet's heat budget here. (The chart also includes the heat budget of the atmosphere, btw.)

Man. You really are a true believer. Laws of nature or real data or evidence means nothing. Like water off a ducks' back. When you finally decide how this Greehouse effect works, please post.

What I find remarkable, is that this theory has not been clearly defined. It has as far as what the official agencies put out for public ( re ignorant masses) consumption. What they show is the Earth heating up just like a real Greenhouse. But among the scientific community, lots of debate. I can see your problem of which viewpoints to give weight to and which to discard.
 
See #768. It's long enough to transfer most of the energy to other molecules in the atmosphere.

We've been through this already. Unless you talk about net exchange, you are going to wind up with nonsense. It's only the net exchange that constitutes heat flow. Microscopic transfer of energy doesn't count. On the microscopic scale there are transfers of energy from cooler objects to warmer objects going on all the time. An individual warm air molecule can gain energy from an interaction with a water molecule in a cold glass of water, but there will be many, many more interactions in which the energy transfer goes the other way.

In the same way, a warm body can receive one, or many, photons radiated by a cooler one. There is no physical law being violated by that and it does not constitute heat flow. Because rate of thermal radiation is governed by temperature, there will be many, many more photons going the other way.

Pseudo science babble, no basis on actual observations or experimentation. This is the kind of crap your side has had to come up with to get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics . The attempts to make the facts fit the theory on this issue are amazing. Not just this, but everything. Hockey sticks, heat from cold to warm, adjusting temps down for no reason, etc etc ad nauseum. Where does it end? Follow Judith Curry's lead. She got out early.


I've tried not to be insulting, but I'm tired of people like you insulting my intelligence.
 
I've tried not to be insulting, but I'm tired of people like you insulting my intelligence.
Right back atcha, bub. This is really a case of not knowing what you don't know. Not sure how Gary could have mistaken you for someone with a science or engineering background, it's pretty obvious you don't have one. Given that, you really ought to listen once in a while instead of prattling on constantly, making pontificating statements.

I've been very patient with you trying to explain what I do know and admitting where the limits of my knowledge lie. Early on in the thread I carelessly used an oversimplification and you called me on it. Okay, my bad. But there is not a single statement I've made with confidence in our exchange today that hasn't been understood very well by pretty much all physicists for nearly if not more than a century. This is not cutting edge science and it's definitely not pseudoscience. It is backed up by dozens if not hundreds of experiments. Some of it takes a little math, like the fact that the Moon's radiating temperature doesn't necessarily agree with its "average" temperature, depending on how you do the math. I don't know of a simple way to explain that one to a layman, nor can I explain very well how macroscopic irreversibility emerges from microscopic reversibility without talking about microstates and macrostates and other concepts that I doubt you have the background to assimilate. I guess that's a failing of mine as a teacher. :(
 
Last edited:
The problem is people, not religion, not science, not economics, not politics, not guns... The root of all problems mankind faces is people, we prefer greed, we have no faith except in what we can buy with money.

Don't know if I agree with everything you say, have to think about it. Remember the old Pogo comic strip? "We have met the enemy, and he is us. "

We seem to have this constant need to create bogeymen. We are so powerful we can change this massive thing called climate. We can change it by our activities or with legislation. What we can't solve with technology we can solve with legislation. Just listen to the high priests, they know everything. I think you are correct that science has gone off the guard rails attempting to prove God does not exist. Science itself is starting to exhibit all the characteristics of a religion.
 
When and how? Science's biggest, most expensive experiment set at the LHC failed at that miserably. Both models that disproved God we're not accurate, the Higgs measurement came in halfway between the super symmetric universe model and the chaotic multiverse model. It came in indicating a super symmetric multiverse, but nobody is looking for that because that indicates against random occurrence.

Physicists have not yet come upon the relationship of space and time being a dynamic interaction, time in motion through space traveling at the speed of light functioning as the carrier wave for life. They also haven't come upon the nature of life being a duality, much as light. Same as a photon is partical and wave, life is similar, only life is information and energy.
The division of disciplines in science is a bit of a problem in being able to see the forest for the trees, but we really should have done a better job of understanding by now since we have developed all the required data, we just refuse to interpret it correctly. Religion had the exact same problem.

God thinks we can make it, I bet against it. As long as I keep up my end of the bet though, I win either way, so WTF, I'm on the ride, maybe we do make it.

BTW, Einstien was wrong on one more thing, God does roll dice. By nature God is a degenerate gambler.

The only way to prove a religion is FAITH.


To try and prove there is a heaven is meaningless because there is zero facts to a religion other than the writings of people in a not so distant past.

All most every religion that is here on Earth....whatever you may believe...God DOES NOT ROLL DICE!

A Gods actions are absolute and all knowing. Mistakes DONT happen!!

If you are a believer....you understand God is exactly the opposite of a gambler.
 
Right back atcha, bub. This is really a case of not knowing what you don't know. Not sure how Gary could have mistaken you for someone with a science or engineering background, it's pretty obvious you don't have one. Given that, you really ought to listen once in a while instead of prattling on constantly, making pontificating statements.

I've been very patient with you trying to explain what I do know and admitting where the limits of my knowledge lie. Early on in the thread I carelessly used an oversimplification and you called me on it. Okay, my bad. But there is not a single statement I've made with confidence in our exchange today that hasn't been understood very well by pretty much all physicists for nearly if not more than a century. This is not cutting edge science and it's definitely not pseudoscience. It is backed up by dozens if not hundreds of experiments. Some of it takes a little math, like the fact that the Moon's radiating temperature doesn't necessarily agree with its "average" temperature, depending on how you do the math. I don't know of a simple way to explain that one to a layman, nor can I explain very well how macroscopic irreversibility emerges from microscopic reversibility without talking about microstates and macrostates and other concepts that I doubt you have the background to assimilate. I guess that's a failing of mine as a teacher. :(

Your biggest failure is placing a "belief" before fact and the real world. When you have a theory, and only one hole is poked in it, that's it, done. It could be any number of things to include observations or predictions that are wildly off mark. Just one hole, and time to discard or modify the theory. Ugly fact destroying a beautiful hypothesis as it were. I shouldn't have to tell you this. It only takes one ugly fact and you are done. Hard to accept, I know, but you need the mental discipline to do so or you are washed up as a scientist. I don't care how many degrees you have behind your name, if you can't accept that ugly fact you are finished. You trusted your collegues on this. Fine, understandable. Any reasonable person, after looking at all the facts, can conclude there are serious issues with the theory. Or deny, deny, deny.

Either your belief set won't let you process the facts, or you are just a "useful idiot" of the movement.
 
Humans tend to be greedy and selfish but that's reality and I'm just trying to live the best I can in this imperfect world.

Never accept what isn't right. Evil rules the world because good men do nothing.

That is why greed is the attractive default we chose, it's easier, you don't have to think nearly as hard or do nearly as much to get what you want when you only want to benefit yourself. As soon as benefiting yourself stipulates benefiting something else as well, we aren't so hot on that. It's stupid of us because when you create multiple benefits from a single input, then you get a compounding effect which raises the entire platform.

People don't like to think for some reason I am having trouble understanding. They don't want to learn more than they need, they don't want to contemplate details and factors and relationships. They want simple answers. That in and of itself isn't a big problem if you have quality leaders to provide them an accurate synopsis of good information.

What people need to learn most right now is they are all connected to each other and everything we perceive, every little thing, is all connected through the field of information carried on the wave of time.

We as an intelligent species serve several functions. Most importantly, we make Heisenberg's observations and apply information to this dimension. We serve as a two way conduit of energy and information between the singularity also known as God, and the cosmic realm of the multiverse. Singularity is incorrect though, it's actually duality, energy and information, that is the existence of God.

We are not merely conduit though, we are also producers of both energy and information. We are a symbiot of God. The Multiverse is meant to act as an over parity generator of life energy and information. We provide God not only sustenance but experience as well. Think of yourself as one of God's cable or You Tube channels in those regards.

Here's the thing with that, every intelligent life form does the same thing all throughout the multiverse, God experiences it all, including the suffering. He doesn't have a choice about it either, and it's really annoying the **** out of him because he gave us everything and we let the greedy take the apple, the sustenance we are meant to provide God, from him. That is the story of Adam and Eve. It's not a prohibition on knowledge, God does a double face palm on that one as the whole meaning of your existence is about seeking knowledge and creating good thought and information. It's not about Sex, God didn't make it fun and orgasms compelling because he doesn't like them, that's for sure. We are meant to leave this planet for the stars, to go forth and multiply, collect resources throught the universe, create more life and more production, but we need to get off the planet to do it. You see, God also plays against a clock on every planet that can develop intelligent life.

While life is almost ubiquitous across the universe, the overwhelmingly vast majority of it is very simple life capable only of producing energy and maybe providing the most elementary observations for existence. To develop intelligent life with big powerful brains, that requires some pretty stringent circumstances, so at any given time there are only maybe a couple dozen planets everywhere capable of doing what can be done on Earth, develop a full production model intelligent life form symbiotic species. That is "The image of God" we are made in. God is also playing against cosmic odds that are part of the interaction between information and proto matter. A comet or asteroid coming through can take us out, and basically God rolled craps and has to start over. Earth itself has its own natural cycles where it can only develop at these levels cyclically through environmental swings. Very little development happens during Ice Ages except around the Equator, and excess CO2 inhibits brain function. So there are these periods of development.

Thing is 6000 years ago we went wrong. We were not always like this. We were not always greedy, in fact, we are not for the most part greedy. However we are subjugated by the greedy, and we are so because people like you would rather just kowtow to bullies and find the path of least resistance till you die.

When one thinks like that one has to stop and think, "What quality of thought and experience does that produce?" "Is this what my conscience indicates I should do? Does my decision make me feel good about myself?"

Humanity is a young species, and it will not be the first that failed in the last week before graduating, it's part of the gamble with Freewill, but without Freewill, we would not be producers, we would be parasites, much as we are now. We do ok on the energy, but the information is pitiful and experience is not particularly pleasant given the state of hunger and suffering in the world when all the resources for that not to exist have been given to us by God, we are just too worried about turning those resources into the most money possible regardless of the consequences.

God would rather we succeed because there is a lot invested in us, but he can't tie this planet up any longer with an apex species that won't light off and start being a quality producer. We are coming up on our third lap around the multiverse since we commoditized money and allowed the greedy to rule the world and to usurp God's name. It started with the Temple Tax and the coin exchange and has grown from there into the financial industry we know today uninterrupted.

Until there is a viable choice in exchange besides this financial system that is the basis of King Midas's fame, (it has no substance, it exists only in people's imagination) then mankind will continue on our path to annihilation.

If people actually wanted things to change, the change would be simple. It is very simple to progress. Urban Agriculture is where it starts, this sets the foundation for the changes in the division of our society on race lines. We can easily eliminate welfare, increase human food production, reclaim pure water from natural gas, increase non human consumption biomass for fuel or animal feed from algae from the water and CO2 recovered from turning natural gas into electricity. The heat and water from the process also sustain the food growing operations.

Since the Solid Oxide Fuel Cells to do this job already exist and at this early stage are 64% efficient at creating electricity alone, the programs can provide electricity beyond their needs for lighting to be sold as peaking power into the grid during times of need at high peak rates, and can convert their excess (determined by heat requirements for the grow house) as well as grid off peak excess at low off peak rates, and convert it to hydrogen for sale at the fill station for the vehicles in the area. We also simultaneously build a parallel electric distribution network to the grid using our current natural gas pipelines since the grid is now fed from both sides of substations. This greatly simplifies the recovery from major grid disruptions from solar or other events that could potentially cripple us now, and turn them into an inconvenience.

We basically have three choices that lead to two paths. We can change for the better, we can change for the worse, or we can do nothing. If we change for the better, we get our StarTrekesque destiny that was ours in the information injected at the Big Bang, the pulse of information that went out with this wave of time that we travel through space in. If we change for the worse, we go extinct. If we do nothing, it's still fuzzy, there are observations to be made between now and then to make that determination, it could be extinction, it could be a Dark Ages partial reset with another mini ice age to get the fresh water resources replenished. We really are on the cusp of making it, we have been for 4000 years now, but we are currently sliding again. All we need to do is to present a better option to people that they can choose to do the right thing, give them the opportunity to be kind and productive, compassionate people.

We have to want to do it though. It can't be forced on people, they have to decide. God thinks given the choice mankind will make the 80% production mark that makes us a viable supplier. Once we manage that, then a whole new level of existence opens up to us.

There is information we don't have and will not be allowed as long as we are a malignant species, which we are. Once we show we are beyond that by managing to move the population off the planet and into space. We will not be able to do that without global cooperation, dedication, and resource allocation both human and physical, so it's the milestone we have to hit, and we won't hit it as long as greed is our driving force as a species.

The thing about just succumbing in thought to a state of apathy is you're screwing yourself in the long run. The Buddhists managed to get the message through the Asian messenger God sent without corrupting it. They didn't really get an understanding of it because they did not have the knowledge of the nature of the universe we have now. They did get the life thing right as it being eternal. Your informational essence will always exist. You go through life to add to that information learning what you need to yet learn to understand your purpose, producing quality information and energy. The primary lesson one needs to learn is that you are also responsible for the thoughts and experiences that others have because of you as these affect God every bit as much as your own actions. This is where the phrase "It would be simpler for a camel to pass through a needle than a wealthy man attain the kingdom of heaven." The acquisition of wealth is typically done at some's expense. As long as there is due value given, then this acquisition of wealth is just fine. However, this is not the standard model of wealth development by far. There is no value produced with any financial transactions. The foundation information for money when it was introduced to mankind was to never ever ever ever under the penalty of death, ever commoditized money.

The reasons the Jews have always been persecuted and are to this day is because they are the ones who broke that rule, they are the ones that gave our species over to greed.

Islam is here as God's "nuclear option" on greed, although it probably won't be necessary, it looks like we'll do ourselves in on water.

Change, don't change, I don't care, it will only matter in this life, and that will be only another maybe 20 years. BTW, the thing the Buddhists didn't work out was Nirvana. Nirvana is a management position instead of a line worker.
 
Last edited:
For the record:
I don't believe that the CO2 contribution from the burning of fossil fuels increases the temperature of the atmosphere appreciably. Even if it did there is no realistic way to alter the course of climate change. Even if it was possible to make an appreciable difference in temperature based on altering human behavior we will never get rich liberals like Al Gore to do their part.
 
Never accept what isn't right. Evil rules the world because good men do nothing.

That is why greed is the attractive default we chose, it's easier, you don't have to think nearly as hard or do nearly as much to get what you want when you only want to benefit yourself. As soon as benefiting yourself stipulates benefiting something else as well, we aren't so hot on that. It's stupid of us because when you create multiple benefits from a single input, then you get a compounding effect which raises the entire platform.

People don't like to think for some reason I am having trouble understanding. They don't want to learn more than they need, they don't want to contemplate details and factors and relationships. They want simple answers. That in and of itself isn't a big problem if you have quality leaders to provide them an accurate synopsis of good information.

What people need to learn most right now is they are all connected to each other and everything we perceive, every little thing, is all connected through the field of information carried on the wave of time.

We as an intelligent species serve several functions. Most importantly, we make Heisenberg's observations and apply information to this dimension. We serve as a two way conduit of energy and information between the singularity also known as God, and the cosmic realm of the multiverse. Singularity is incorrect though, it's actually duality, energy and information, that is the existence of God.

We are not merely conduit though, we are also producers of both energy and information. We are a symbiot of God. The Multiverse is meant to act as an over parity generator of life energy and information. We provide God not only sustenance but experience as well. Think of yourself as one of God's cable or You Tube channels in those regards.

Here's the thing with that, every intelligent life form does the same thing all throughout the multiverse, God experiences it all, including the suffering. He doesn't have a choice about it either, and it's really annoying the **** out of him because he gave us everything and we let the greedy take the apple, the sustenance we are meant to provide God, from him. That is the story of Adam and Eve. It's not a prohibition on knowledge, God does a double face palm on that one as the whole meaning of your existence is about seeking knowledge and creating good thought and information. It's not about Sex, God didn't make it fun and orgasms compelling because he doesn't like them, that's for sure. We are meant to leave this planet for the stars, to go forth and multiply, collect resources throught the universe, create more life and more production, but we need to get off the planet to do it. You see, God also plays against a clock on every planet that can develop intelligent life.

While life is almost ubiquitous across the universe, the overwhelmingly vast majority of it is very simple life capable only of producing energy and maybe providing the most elementary observations for existence. To develop intelligent life with big powerful brains, that requires some pretty stringent circumstances, so at any given time there are only maybe a couple dozen planets everywhere capable of doing what can be done on Earth, develop a full production model intelligent life form symbiotic species. That is "The image of God" we are made in. God is also playing against cosmic odds that are part of the interaction between information and proto matter. A comet or asteroid coming through can take us out, and basically God rolled craps and has to start over. Earth itself has its own natural cycles where it can only develop at these levels cyclically through environmental swings. Very little development happens during Ice Ages except around the Equator, and excess CO2 inhibits brain function. So there are these periods of development.

Thing is 6000 years ago we went wrong. We were not always like this. We were not always greedy, in fact, we are not for the most part greedy. However we are subjugated by the greedy, and we are so because people like you would rather just kowtow to bullies and find the path of least resistance till you die.

When one thinks like that one has to stop and think, "What quality of thought and experience does that produce?" "Is this what my conscience indicates I should do? Does my decision make me feel good about myself?"

Humanity is a young species, and it will not be the first that failed in the last week before graduating, it's part of the gamble with Freewill, but without Freewill, we would not be producers, we would be parasites, much as we are now. We do ok on the energy, but the information is pitiful and experience is not particularly pleasant given the state of hunger and suffering in the world when all the resources for that not to exist have been given to us by God, we are just too worried about turning those resources into the most money possible regardless of the consequences.

God would rather we succeed because there is a lot invested in us, but he can't tie this planet up any longer with an apex species that won't light off and start being a quality producer. We are coming up on our third lap around the multiverse since we commoditized money and allowed the greedy to rule the world and to usurp God's name. It started with the Temple Tax and the coin exchange and has grown from there into the financial industry we know today uninterrupted.

Until there is a viable choice in exchange besides this financial system that is the basis of King Midas's fame, (it has no substance, it exists only in people's imagination) then mankind will continue on our path to annihilation.

If people actually wanted things to change, the change would be simple. It is very simple to progress. Urban Agriculture is where it starts, this sets the foundation for the changes in the division of our society on race lines. We can easily eliminate welfare, increase human food production, reclaim pure water from natural gas, increase non human consumption biomass for fuel or animal feed from algae from the water and CO2 recovered from turning natural gas into electricity. The heat and water from the process also sustain the food growing operations.

Since the Solid Oxide Fuel Cells to do this job already exist and at this early stage are 64% efficient at creating electricity alone, the programs can provide electricity beyond their needs for lighting to be sold as peaking power into the grid during times of need at high peak rates, and can convert their excess (determined by heat requirements for the grow house) as well as grid off peak excess at low off peak rates, and convert it to hydrogen for sale at the fill station for the vehicles in the area. We also simultaneously build a parallel electric distribution network to the grid using our current natural gas pipelines since the grid is now fed from both sides of substations. This greatly simplifies the recovery from major grid disruptions from solar or other events that could potentially cripple us now, and turn them into an inconvenience.

We basically have three choices that lead to two paths. We can change for the better, we can change for the worse, or we can do nothing. If we change for the better, we get our StarTrekesque destiny that was ours in the information injected at the Big Bang, the pulse of information that went out with this wave of time that we travel through space in. If we change for the worse, we go extinct. If we do nothing, it's still fuzzy, there are observations to be made between now and then to make that determination, it could be extinction, it could be a Dark Ages partial reset with another mini ice age to get the fresh water resources replenished. We really are on the cusp of making it, we have been for 4000 years now, but we are currently sliding again. All we need to do is to present a better option to people that they can choose to do the right thing, give them the opportunity to be kind and productive, compassionate people.

We have to want to do it though. It can't be forced on people, they have to decide. God thinks given the choice mankind will make the 80% production mark that makes us a viable supplier. Once we manage that, then a whole new level of existence opens up to us.

There is information we don't have and will not be allowed as long as we are a malignant species, which we are. Once we show we are beyond that by managing to move the population off the planet and into space. We will not be able to do that without global cooperation, dedication, and resource allocation both human and physical, so it's the milestone we have to hit, and we won't hit it as long as greed is our driving force as a species.

The thing about just succumbing in thought to a state of apathy is you're screwing yourself in the long run. The Buddhists managed to get the message through the Asian messenger God sent without corrupting it. They didn't really get an understanding of it because they did not have the knowledge of the nature of the universe we have now. They did get the life thing right as it being eternal. Your informational essence will always exist. You go through life to add to that information learning what you need to yet learn to understand your purpose, producing quality information and energy. The primary lesson one needs to learn is that you are also responsible for the thoughts and experiences that others have because of you as these affect God every bit as much as your own actions. This is where the phrase "It would be simpler for a camel to pass through a needle than a wealthy man attain the kingdom of heaven." The acquisition of wealth is typically done at some's expense. As long as there is due value given, then this acquisition of wealth is just fine. However, this is not the standard model of wealth development by far. There is no value produced with any financial transactions. The foundation information for money when it was introduced to mankind was to never ever ever ever under the penalty of death, ever commoditized money.

The reasons the Jews have always been persecuted and are to this day is because they are the ones who broke that rule, they are the ones that gave our species over to greed.

Islam is here as God's "nuclear option" on greed, although it probably won't be necessary, it looks like we'll do ourselves in on water.

Change, don't change, I don't care, it will only matter in this life, and that will be only another maybe 20 years. BTW, the thing the Buddhists didn't work out was Nirvana. Nirvana is a management position instead of a line worker.

WOW!! This could be the longest Psychobabble I have ever read.

Henning you are the next L. Ron Hubbard.....you are missing your calling....you could make billions off these ideas. ;)
 
For the record:
I don't believe that the CO2 contribution from the burning of fossil fuels increases the temperature of the atmosphere appreciably. Even if it did there is no realistic way to alter the course of climate change. Even if it was possible to make an appreciable difference in temperature based on altering human behavior we will never get rich liberals like Al Gore to do their part.

The atmosphere is not the worry, the energy in the oceans are the worry, that is what drives the weather. Do we contribute? Yes, but it's irrelevant. The reason we need to reduce the CO2 we dump into the atmosphere is because we need to use that CO2 to grow algae for for both food and energy. Because we need to reclaim the fresh water from the natural gas to electric process and use it to grow food and sustain life rather than get blasted into the atmosphere where we might manage to get 3% of it back before it becomes salt water.

We have been given a century's worth of technology that we refuse to develop because burning fossil fuels is more profitable this quarter and we already own the combustion infrastructure to maximize every last penny out of.
 
WOW!! This could be the longest Psychobabble I have ever read.

Henning you are the next L. Ron Hubbard.....you are missing your calling....you could make billions off these ideas. ;)

You didn't read it all, and if you think I should make billions off of this, you didn't understand it if you did.

You also don't understand what psychobabble is.
 
Either your belief set won't let you process the facts, or you are just a "useful idiot" of the movement.
What facts? Let's get down to brass tacks. What predictions based on the greenhouse effect do you think are contradicted by facts?
 
You didn't read it all, and if you think I should make billions off of this, you didn't understand it if you did.

You also don't understand what psychobabble is.


Psychobabble is what you do....and very understandable.

You try to create a truth or plausibility with your ramblings. Most of your ramblings are egocentric and drowning in self believed truths.
 
What facts? Let's get down to brass tacks. What predictions based on the greenhouse effect do you think are contradicted by facts?

No correlation of increase of CO2 then temperature rise. None, nada, zip.
 
T The reason we need to reduce the CO2 we dump into the atmosphere is because we need to use that CO2 to grow algae for for both food and energy.

That does not seem to be an insurmountable problem. There might be a lot of ways to feed our excess CO2 to algae, at least, the leftovers from what the trees, grasses, forests, and jungles do not use.,...or my lawn.
 
The only bodies that I know of in the solar system with surfaces that are warmer than predicted by that equation are Venus, the Earth, Mars (only slightly) and Titan. The Moon is not one of them. The Moon's average surface temperature is as predicted - provided you do the average the correct way.


It's on the order of microseconds - something like 15 or so. Long enough that most excited CO2 molecules transfer most of that energy to other molecules in the atmosphere through collisions and then emit a photon with lower energy than the one they absorbed.

Yes.

No. Thermal radiation is emitted at the same rate regardless of the surrounding environment.

Not sure about that one, but a spacecraft's ability to shed heat by radiation is not affected by being surrounded by a vacuum. Photons travel just fine through space. Interplanetary spacecraft need electric heaters as well as insulation to slow heat loss from the interior to the outside. In the vacuum of space, the only heat sink is radiative cooling.

As I said, I'm not sure of the answer to that yet. It's not "bouncing back and forth" though, that would obviously have zero net effect. You can find a diagram of the planet's heat budget here. (The chart also includes the heat budget of the atmosphere, btw.)

I guess the ordinary uneducated vacuum thermos hasn't got the word on this yet. I'm sure it wil begin behaving in the proper manner and cool down faster when it learns this.
 
Psychobabble is what you do....and very understandable.

You try to create a truth or plausibility with your ramblings. Most of your ramblings are egocentric and drowning in self believed truths.

How is it egocentric?
 
That does not seem to be an insurmountable problem. There might be a lot of ways to feed our excess CO2 to algae, at least, the leftovers from what the trees, grasses, forests, and jungles do not use.,...or my lawn.

Not for direct consumption by a useful product there isn't. We are cutting down forests and jungles daily across the planet.
 
No correlation of increase of CO2 then temperature rise. None, nada, zip.
I already posted a graph from recent instrumental data, but you think that the evidence was manufactured or fudged. I can't help you there.

There is plenty of evidence for correlation in the Antarctic ice core record over the last half million years or so. But you have that little word "then" in your demand and as you know well, we don't have fine enough temporal resolution in ice core data to tell which came first. Actually no one thinks GHGs were *the* driver for any of the major climate shifts in geologic history (with the possible exception of the end-Permian extinction), rather that they functioned as a feedback to reinforce temp changes driven by other factors.

Even if I give you that we don't have strong evidence that GHGs are behind the recent warming trend (and I think the evidence is pretty strong, just not ironclad), there's an old saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The theory has not been falsified by evidence. And on the contrary, it has a sound basis in theory that has been backed up by solid experiments going back a century or more.

I haven't gone this far before but it seems obvious to me: your attitude is simply anti-science and anti-scientist. You don't like the activism of some climate scientists because a political movement you hate has latched onto it and is pushing for legislation that would impose changes in everyone's lifestyle, so you have to find some way to discredit their work. You don't know squat about the science so you latch onto crackpot theories dreamed up by people who don't know squat about the science either.

The problem is that you don't know what you don't know.
 
Last edited:
Here's the issue, we are not capturing our waste products into useful products at the human levels of efficiency with which we create them. We have unbalanced our population from the natural order by a factor of nearly 16, we have boosted production of food over natural capability by a factor of 4 through the use of technology, and we use all our natural resources with a .3 efficiency factor.

The Earth is a balanced system, and it is exceedingly rare in the universe, all the factors required to develop big brained intelligent life, all together at the same time, and we are wasting it by not applying our technical brilliance to achieve our destiny, the reason we were given technical brilliance to begin with. Instead we squander it to maximize profit of money.

We need to apply our technological brilliance to create systems that operate at multiple levels of efficiency. Getting one product from a process is not sufficient even if it is the most profitable. We have too many people on the planet to be as wasteful as we are. With fuel cell electric processes, not only do we step up from 35-50% efficiency creating electricity from the combustion process plants to 64%, the waste heat and carbon dioxide released from the process can be put to work creating food and energy. Algae reactors are a great way to take waste C02 and convert it to stored energy at high levels of concentration. That algae can then be turned into food, feed, fertilizer, or fuel. The SOFC process also can reclaim the water split off the natural gas for direct consumption in the food and algae production process as well as to electrolycize hydrogen from.

We have to take all our waste products and try to make another product out of them, and another product from those left overs... ad infinitum. The Earth is no different than a ship at sea, infact, it's really a tiny lifeboat in the infinite sea of the cosmos. We have to take very good care of our use of resources in order to fix it into an Island that sustains us. Right now it cannot sustain us for much longer. If we don't adopt a change, 9 billion people is the tipping point that will bring about our end.
 
Last edited:
You are still stuck on money...... are you sure it isn't envy on your part?

No envy in the slightest, I want for nothing that I only need money to get. Whenever I need money, money calls me and I go collect what I need.

Money itself is not the problem, it is a tool that was handed to us by God, all great inspiration is information given to us from God at critical times in our development. The problem is we broke the rules for the creation and application of money, and that allowed the greedy and malignant to control society.

The problem is not a thing, the problem is that we don't understand that we are actually a we. We are all cells of a greater organism, God. That is where your faith is failing you by providing a barrier in the system, a middleman to listen to rather than your conscience. Unfortunately, that does nothing to abdicate your personal responsibilities to God. "Ignorance is no excuse", and you can't really claim ignorance either because God's laws, the Ten Comandments, are in the base tenants of your faith. When God calls you to the carpet and points to the rules and asks, "So just where wasn't I clear?" What will your answer be? "Well this guy told me..."? That won't cut it, you better figure out something better. Just remember though, God is part of your thought process, so trying to come up with an excuse for the inexcusable is kind of futile.
 
For the record:
I don't believe that the CO2 contribution from the burning of fossil fuels increases the temperature of the atmosphere appreciably.
Are you saying that it hasn't yet had time to cause an appreciable increase, that the natural variability is greater than the effect so far, or that the effect is so small that it will always be less than the natural variability no matter how much CO2 we pump into the system?
Even if it did there is no realistic way to alter the course of climate change.
How do you define "realistic"? Based on our inability to accurately predict the result of changes in our CO2 output? Or because our current lifestyle demands that we keep doing so, and as Henning points out, people haven't learned to act for the common good, not enough are going to willingly change their lifestyle to have a significant effect and the political will doesn't exist to force them to do so?
Even if it was possible to make an appreciable difference in temperature based on altering human behavior we will never get rich liberals like Al Gore to do their part.
Doesn't matter the political persuasion, IMO. Doesn't even matter how rich they are. People are people, we'll always find a way to avoid doing our part.
 
Well yeah, I think that's hitting the nail on the head. Maybe a little too squarely. ;)

Well I think it is BS, those with "wealth" notice ridiculous energy costs with subdued annoyance. Those without wealth are significantly affected by these schemes and are forced to make a choice between a tank of oil or food and medicine, all over something that if you believe all the hype, even the offered "solutions" won't solve.
 
Well I think it is BS, those with "wealth" notice ridiculous energy costs with subdued annoyance. Those without wealth are significantly affected by these schemes and are forced to make a choice between a tank of oil or food and medicine, all over something that if you believe all the hype, even the offered "solutions" won't solve.

Those with wealth are typically the those shortest of vision of what could be because they have everything they think they want.
 
I already posted a graph from recent instrumental data, but you think that the evidence was manufactured or fudged. I can't help you there.

There is plenty of evidence for correlation in the Antarctic ice core record over the last half million years or so. But you have that little word "then" in your demand and as you know well, we don't have fine enough temporal resolution in ice core data to tell which came first. Actually no one thinks GHGs were *the* driver for any of the major climate shifts in geologic history (with the possible exception of the end-Permian extinction), rather that they functioned as a feedback to reinforce temp changes driven by other factors.

Even if I give you that we don't have strong evidence that GHGs are behind the recent warming trend (and I think the evidence is pretty strong, just not ironclad), there's an old saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The theory has not been falsified by evidence. And on the contrary, it has a sound basis in theory that has been backed up by solid experiments going back a century or more.

I haven't gone this far before but it seems obvious to me: your attitude is simply anti-science and anti-scientist. You don't like the activism of some climate scientists because a political movement you hate has latched onto it and is pushing for legislation that would impose changes in everyone's lifestyle, so you have to find some way to discredit their work. You don't know squat about the science so you latch onto crackpot theories dreamed up by people who don't know squat about the science either.

The problem is that you don't know what you don't know.

Of course the evidence has been falsified. You don't have to take my or anyone else's word for it. All you have to do is go directly to the source and read the climategate Emails. You won't read those Emails becuase they will tell you something you don't want to hear. You would rather read an apologists summary telling you it was no big deal.

The graph you posted is based on that "fudged" data. If you ever look at a real graph where the numbers have not been " adjusted" ( adjusted for reasons unknown, no explanation offered, evidence destroyed) it is plain to see that there is no correlation of an increase of CO2 then temperature rise. Just in the modern temperature record there is evidence of the direct opposite of correlation.

How many studies of ice cores do you need to see? They all show temperature increase then an increase of CO2 . The increase of CO2 is at least a 500 year lag. You don't need a lot of resolution with that amount of lag to see that the increase of CO2 comes much later. The increase in CO2 is obviously not one of your idiotic feedback mechanisms to reinforce temperature.

There has only been one experiment testing the Greenhouse theory. That was conducted by Robert Wood in 1909. Before you call Wood a crackpot you may want to check out his career. This man was a giant, but you never even heard of him, becuase the MMGW people would prefer he never lived. Wood's experiment disproved the Greenhouse theory. His experiment has been repeated successfully.

It would be interesting to construct a graph with you and people like you on one axis, and the scientific method on the other axis. It would without a doubt show NO correlation!
 
Last edited:
Those with wealth are typically the those shortest of vision of what could be because they have everything they think they want.

Many people who accumulated great wealth, despite the idiocy of socialists, progressives, communists, and those like jimmy, who are so insanely jealous of those who have what they themselves want, had not only the vision necessary to gain their wealth, but took the risks to do so.

What you are saying is nothing but projection and pretense.
 
Back
Top