By Physics Nobel Laureate John Clauser
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Forests Cause Forest Fires
- Climate Engineering
- The World’s Worst Scientists
- “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- A Real Hockey Stick
- A Real Hockey Stick
- Doubling Energy Costs
- Doubling Energy Costs
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
Recent Comments
- Michael Peinsipp on Forests Cause Forest Fires
- Michael Peinsipp on Forests Cause Forest Fires
- Conrad Ziefle on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Conrad Ziefle on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Conrad Ziefle on Forests Cause Forest Fires
- James Snook on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Stan Grove on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Richard E Fritz on Doubling Energy Costs
- Richard E Fritz on A Real Hockey Stick
- Richard E Fritz on The World’s Worst Scientists
Tony:
You need to get this out every where you can. All over the world. ASAP
A system that is stable for thousands and millions of years
will never ever break because of a 0.01% change of whatever –
otherwise it would not be so stable.
And especially not when the 0.01% are a trace gas that has never before collapsed the system in hundreds of millions of years with much higher quantities.
Clauser minces no words. He calls the perpetrators of the Climate Scam for exactly what they did, what they are, and exactly why. Climate change is based on a myth and been built on fraud to keep that myth alive. It is indeed a house of cards. Blow, blow, ye winds, blow.
As long as the public believes that the climate experts consist of the idiots who glue themselves to buildings and destroy works of art, Clauser’s wisdom will fall on deaf ears. Just wait and see the inevitable mud-slinging denouncing him with the usual litany: right wing, white supremacist, misogynist, racist, antisemitic, homophobic … Anything but refute real science.
The content is great, but, regrettably, Dr. Clauser is a poor speaker. So, turn off the sound and scroll from one visual to the next. Part II should be more informative for most of you because it adds something new. Y’all already know much of what is in Part I.
I agree with Dr. Clauser’s many points about cloud cover. However, he may need to tie up a lie end. What happens to the energy released during a rainfall (an exothermic event)?
Need to add: Part II begins near the 34 minute mark.
“What happens to the energy released during a rainfall (an exothermic event)?”
Trying to make sense of that in my own (very old) mind- thinking aloud here.
.
1 – Water in the sea/river/lake is evaporated by heat from the sun into water vapour – heat input required to make it happen.
2 – WV rises up in the atmosphere to cooler region- condenses into liquid water droplets = clouds = heat output to atmosphere.
3 – Water droplets fall as rain through the atmosphere, some evaporate on it’s way down requiring heat input from atmosphere – cooling- the remainder fall as rain.
Possibly the cooling on the way down balances the heating on the way up when condensing to form liquid water?
Does this make sense?
YouTube’s usual note about global warming is conspicuous by its absence. Even the prigs at Google appear to recognize when they have been not only outclassed, and exposed as accessories in a crime.
Many thanks to Dr John F Clauser for this presentation and to Tony to publish it.
Looking at the Earth annual energy budget used in the IPCC reports, we can see that in the clear-sky conditions (see at 29:36) :
– the energy absorbed by the atmospheric active gases in the IR spectrum is the difference between :
– the upwards flux from the surface absorbed by the atmosphere : 398 – 40 (atmospheric window from Kiehl & Trenberth 1997) = 358 W/m²
– the downwards flux from atmosphere to the surface : 314 W/m²
Thus the energy absorbed by the active gases in the atmosphere from the ground is about 358-314 = 44 W/m².
On the other hand, those same gases emit into the space 267W/m².
In other words, according to the IPCC reports themselves, the atmospheric gases that are active in the IR spectrum (Water vapor, CO2, …) have a net cooling effect of 267-44 = 223 W/m².
The same reasoning can be applied to the all-sky condition.
In conclusion, those “greenhouse” gases must induce some warming (thermalization) in the low troposphere which may warm it a bit and enhance convection, but they emit 6 to 8-fold more energy into space than they absorb from the ground and thus cool more the atmosphere (roughly from the middle to the top of the troposphere) than they warm it (in the low troposphere). The convection cells (air circulation) allow this radiative net cooling to take place by replacing the ascending warmed air (by IR absorption from the ground) by the descending cooled air (by IR emission into space).
If this reasoning is correct, how can it be that those gases are even considered as “greenhouse” gases ?
What happens in the short term is irrelevant. What goes in is what comes out, unless energy is generated spontaneously, contrary to the first law of Thermodynamics. The issue is whether it is energy that is absorbed and re-radiated or whether it is directly reflected. Unless they are ionized, gases do not reflect, which leaves particulate and water droplets as the source of increased albedo. If the planet gets hotter, more water evaporates and increases cloud cover as it condenses in the cooler air at altitude. So increased temperature = more cloud, decreased temperature=less cloud.
As far as energy is concerned precisely the same amount of latent heat is recovered in condensation as was required to evaporate the water from the sea. It remains within the atmosphere.
There is a further effect on surface temperature operating over much longer time scales and that is the influence of latent heat on temperature lapse rate.
Water vapour provides massive negative feedback, but the junk science claims it increases the greenhouse effect and is thus a positive feedback. The positive feedback of water vapour was needed because CO2 alone would not yield the large temperature rise needed to justify panic.
HEY!!!! Didn’t I say this first!!! Take the surface of the planet as a control volume, when water evaporates, it takes heat away, when rain returns, it returns with substantially less heat. Clouds remove heat from the planet. I think they radiate it to space.
But he probably thought of it before I did.
the IPCC- the EU the WHO the retards at Devos – Bill Gates – mass Media and WORST of Worst Dutch government – DONT FRACKING CARE – they LUST at taking over all people and controlling them just like 1984 – they DONT Care about facts or people- i believe Gates is mind is so warped he would not care if he was directly responsible with 2 or 4 BILLION Deaths in the persecute of saving the planet by murdering billions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leUbP7sxUY4
i have this feeling Musk was at a Billionaire Take over the World meeting with Suckerberger, Soros mentally ill son, Gates at Devos type setting with 007 bad guy Clause and others and he was shocked at what he was hearing from their mouths and that is why be bought X and is standing for freedom – Suckerberger is going to the Ted Double murderer room next to Satan
I note that on John Clauser’s Wikipedia page, the author mentions John Clauser’s status as a climate denier and asserts that although thick clouds at low altitude may have a cooling effect, that thin clouds at higher altitude have a warming effect and that this is supported by experimental evidence.
Perhaps John Clauser may be persuaded to explain why thinner clouds at high altitude have a warming effect, if this claim is true or refute the claim, by explaining the physical processes involved.
I think that the author of John Clauser’s wikipedia page wishes to discredit the arguments of John Clauser, relating to the alleged climate crisis and the political agenda which it is claimed to justify.
If anything, it is backwards to that. Clouds at a higher attitude would be cooling, while low clouds might be insulating and slowing heat transfer. Why? High clouds would reflect incoming solar radiation, so the heat never gets here. Also, I believe that they, being water vapor, a green house gas, would be able to radiate heat to space, they being at, say -20F and space being at -460F, absolute zero, essentially a black body. I’d like to see the experimental evidence. I bet they f’d up, which they often do.