Climate Conditioning

NOAA made a tweet yesterday hoping to scare people about the use of reliable energy supplies, but the information in the tweet showed the exact opposite. They were hoping for an irrational conditioned response.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Climate Conditioning

  1. Disillusioned says:

    Excellent, valuable, succinct 4 minutes.

    In 2010 I changed my political affiliation because of climate science (Real Climate Science). My fellow Democrats were totally brainwashed as they refused to acknowledge any disillusioning data I presented (literally 100% of those I spoke to about this would not accept any of it). I am grateful I kept my eyes and mind open, that I left the Democrat Party, stopped listening to the Ministry of Truth and shrank my social circle.

    • Conrad Ziefle says:

      Talk about Democrats, a good number are completely absorbed into the religion. I heard just yesterday that Trump is an idiot (I wouldn’t argue against that after he let Fauci take over the government), and that Joe Biden is an honorable man. Now that second part is so far from reality and has been shown to be false with proof of years of plagiarism, lying, and highly probable influence peddling.
      Speaking of plagiarism, I hope I’m not. I actually traced out the temperature profile from the Vostok temperature profiles but more coarsely. And of course, the color selection has already been done (nearly the same at least) by someone else, but if necessary we’ll work that out later. The colors work great on the Tee-shirt against almost all background colors.
      I don’t want to take a lot of space here explaining it, as it is a distraction from the topic here, but I need some feedback. You can use the email at the website. Anyone interested, please let me know your opinions.

    • Billyjack says:

      One would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than refute the government gospel that the “woke again” flock of the Church of Warming accept without question.

  2. Most people have refrigerators, air conditioning units and cars. A vast number of the general public know how they work. When a gas or vapour is compressed it gets hot, when it expands it cools. Why then is it so difficult to grasp the idea that as gas circulates from high pressure to low in the atmosphere that the temperature drops? This ha nothing to do with any mythical radiative balance between adjacent atmospheric layers, from which a non-existent greenhouse effect may be deduced.

    The effect of atmospheric composition is to vary the polytropic index associated with the expansion. If the Earth had no oceans, the average temperature would be about 60 degrees Celsius. Water vapour reduces it to the nominal 15 degrees. If the atmosphere were pure carbon dioxide with no oceans the surface temperature would be bout 30 degrees, and pure methan would yield a similar value. With oceans, either gas would yield an insignificant (2 degrees) temperature rise at 100% concentration.

    The fundamental theory of global warming is complete bunk, and coding it into models does not correct it.

    • The fundamental reason for the temperature gradient is the simple fact that as gas rises it gains gravitational potential energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so this increase in gravitational energy comes from the thermal energy of the gas, hence it cools as it rises and warms at it descends, pressure and density then follow from the adiabatic compression equations. This process completely accounts for the high surface temperature of Venus, the source of the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ fairy tale.

      I write this in anticipation of the ludicrous claim that the pressure gradient itself arises from the fictitious green house effect.

      • Conrad Ziefle says:

        Venus’s surface pressure is 82 atms, I believe, which is roughly equal to being 2700 feet under water, or about .5 miles deep. Take any gas table at that pressure and it is reasonable hot. From the gas tables for air, a pressure ratio of 82 would give a temperature of 1200F. I believe that is added to the starting air temperature. Assume 70F, so a final temperature of 1270F. I wonder why Venus’s atmosphere is so dense as to have a surface pressure of 82 atms?

        • The tropopause temperature of Venus is determined from the radiative balance with the solar constant at 204 K. The acceleration of gravity is 8.2 m/s/s, and the specific heat at constant pressure is about 900 J/kg/K, yielding a temperature lapse rate of 9.7 K/km. The troposphere is 60 km deep, so the temperature rise across the troposphere is 586 K, so the surface temperature is 790K. Nothing to do with the radiative properties of CO2.

        • Temperature of a gas is not a function just of pressure, but of density as well. Gas circulating in the atmosphere experiences adiabatic compression and expansion. For a gas obeying the ideal gas equation, pressure ratio is related to temperature ratio by raising it to the power of gamma/(gamma-1), where gamma is the ratio of specific heats (1.3 for CO2). Density ratio is given by anindex of 1/(gamma-1). A temperature ratio of 3.6 yields a compression ratio of 266:1 . The tropopause temperature is 22kPa so the surface pressure would be 58 atmospheres. This is an uder-estimate because the ideal gas equation is a poor approximation at such extreme pressures. Apply the ideal gas equation to get the density yields about 15kg/m^3. A better estimate of both pressure and density is found from the van der Waals equation, but that requires a numerical solution.

  3. Bill Odom says:

    The “Climate Crisis” is a perfect example of the folly of making long-term policy on unproven science. This entire mess was initiated before plate tectonics was even a theory. Tectonics provides a process of renewing reserves of natural gas and petroleum. We are currently using more of these resources faster than they can be replenished, but fusion researchers estimate that they will be able to use fusion to provide all the energy we need for non-mobile power within 50 years. Combine this with the advances in superconducting materials to deliver that power and known reserves will more than get us over that “hump”. However, current policies and subsidies to “Green Energy” providers provide plugs for the ears of policy makers. But, when was there ever a politician who admitted that he was wrong about anything? As usual, follow the money.

    • Conrad Ziefle says:

      Seventy years ago, they said they would have fusion in 20 years. 50 years ago, they said they were just about there; a bit more funding would get them over the top. Now several “bit more fundings” later, they can get there in 50 years.

  4. Francis Barnett says:

    I used to ride with a motorcycle group back in the UK, one of the guys was a senior engineer at Sizewell B nuclear power station. He said a standard industry joke is :-
    “Nuclear fusion is the power source of the future – and always will be…!!”

    • Disillusioned says:

      I have wanted to know, and since you said you used to ride, I think perhaps my hunch was correct about your moniker. Did you have (or still have) a Francis-Barnett motorcycle?

      • Francis Barnett says:

        “Used to ride” in the sense of before I emigrated from the UK to France when I did my advanced test in the 90’s and rode with a local advanced group. That’s a test based on the UK police Roadcraft riding system.
        No – nor did I ever posses a FB but a school friend did.
        It was just my way of creating a forum name which sounds like a real name. I never use my real name on any forum since having trouble in the past from that.
        I have a 2001 BMW R1100S and a 2006 Yamaha FJR 1300A nowadays here in France.
        Thanks for your interest..!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *