Baffling Them With Bullshit

This article is a great example of how climate experts use sciency sounding talk to confuse their readers with mindless BS

ScreenHunter_8130 Mar. 26 10.30moyhu: The Greenhouse Effect and the Adiabatic Lapse Rate

Then he goes on and on with a bunch of jargon to make it sounds like he is saying something.

So let’s put his theory to the test. If the amount of greenhouse gas significantly affected the dry (unsaturated) lapse rate, then days with higher humidity would have a higher lapse rate than days with low humidity  – because more humidity means more greenhouse gas.

But the unsaturated lapse rate is not significantly affected by humidity (until it reaches 100% when the lapse rate actually decreases) showing that the lapse rate has little to do with the greenhouse effect.

Test number two. Venus surface is dark for months at a time due to very slow planetary rotation – yet the lapse rate and surface temperature does not change considerably. Obviously it is not the “greenhouse effect” (trapped sunlight) making it hot.

These clowns learn a few words, and a little math – yet don’t think through simple tests to determine if what they are doing makes any sense.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

35 Responses to Baffling Them With Bullshit

  1. dmacleo says:

    everything I’ve seen stokes write seems to follow that template.
    saw link posted earlier today on another post here, bet hes had more traffic to the post than when it was posted almost 5 years ago.

  2. Mac says:

    As I’ve said before, the cult member has to have the cult. Truly frightening. When you’ve spent years pushing this awful lying garbage, I guess you have to keep going despite thefact you know it’s garbage, and you know the planet isn’t warming at all. So, you’ve dug yourself into a deep hole, and, instead of trying to get out, you just keep on digging like a mindless automaton.

    Besides, I wouldn’t trust anything said by someone who actually uses the word “meme”.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Mac! I agree with you about Stokes — but “meme” is a perfectly good word! 🙂

      If you ever run across it, “Virus of the Mind” by Richard Brodie is a very good book on the subject.

      Just saying…

      • Mac says:

        Sorry. I don’t like or approve of any word that was coined by an idiot like Richard Dawkins. First of all, it’s a phony made-up word. Second, Dawkins is an irritating, elitist, smarmy liberal jerk, who enjoys humiliating and insulting other people simply because they might believe something greater than ourselves could possibly have caused the Big Bang.

        Just saying…

        • Tel says:

          Would you prefer the words “sociobiology” and “sociogenetic” which were coined by E. O. Wilson several decades before Richard Dawkins started talking about “memes” ?

    • nielszoo says:

      I use it exclusively to describe the CAGW-AGW scheme ’cause the libs pay attention to “arty” sounding words… and it has two fewer letters than “scheme” and a lot fewer than “psychotically driven lying boondoggle” so I save a few trillion electrons from running around needlessly.

      • Mac says:

        Actually, you’re right. I totally agree. Liberals just adore trendy non-words such as “meme”, because it makes them think they’re saying something really intelligent. The excruciating overuse of that word — along with several other lefty internet buzzwords I can think of — is part of the liberal “diaspora”, and its use is “proactive” and avoids causing “issues” (see what I did there?).

        • Mac, I am with you on the irritability of some words and phrases. I truly hate some of them.

          I am with Niel on using their words against them. I brace myself mentally, and proclaim in my best “European” accent that we need a paradigm shift on applying the precautionary principle for CO2 emissions or somesuch stupidity.

          Some of them perk up and listen, morons. It works better than telling them they believe in crap.

          I haven’t told anybody yet to check his first world male privilege on energy use, but it’s coming.

  3. Realist says:

    This seems to be made out to be more complicated than it is. Correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t this pressure experiment be done on earth? As you increase altitude in the troposhere on earth the temperature goes down. At 38,000 feet the temperature is -70F, despite being the same composition as sea level. It’s the lack of pressure, am I wrong?

    Also you can see this in weather, regions with high pressure are generally nicer and warmer than the same regions with low pressure. Am I wrong?

    Go up into the mountains, its usually much cooler up there, despite the same atmospheric composition on the ground? Am I wrong?

    Unless I’m missing something, this seems pretty straight forward.

    • Gail Combs says:

      You can calculate the drop in temperature due to altitude using the Engineering Tool Box.

      • Les Johnson says:

        The lapse rate used by most climatologists and meteorologists is 6.5 deg C per 1000 meters altitude.

        As pointed out by Essex and McKittrick in the book “Taken by Storm”, if the lapse rate falls to 6 deg C per 1000 meters, CO2 actually becomes a NEGATIVE forcing.

    • Realist, above the atmosphere is space, which has a temperature of 4 C. The atmosphere radiates to space. So there are 2 reasons what the stratosphere is cooler than the troposphere:

      1. Dry adiabatic lapse rate: as air rises it expands and cools due to the expansion
      2. It’s closer to that 4 C space

      There is also the latent heat thing in the troposphere. So ok, 3 reasons.

      Regions with high pressure are warmer because there are fewer clouds and the sun gets in. (In the daytime. Those regions are COLDER at night.

      • Scratch the latent heat thing. 2 reasons.

      • Truthseeker says:

        Space … 4C or 4K?

        I thought it was 4K. I am pretty sure that water would freeze in space …

      • Menicholas says:

        Is it not a simple application of Boyle’s Law?
        That the term specifies that the process being referred to is adiabatic, I think perhaps the only relevant part is the expansion of the rising parcel, as otherwise it would not be an adiabatic process. Heat lost from the parcel due to radiation or conduction to the surrounding air, is specifically excluded in this definition, no?
        I am also thinking that perhaps there is some confusion over terminology in at least some of the discussion I have read, with the environmental lapse rate being conflated with the adiabatic lapse rate.

    • nielszoo says:

      Realist, to add to the pile. Lapse rate is the relationship to temperature from the density of the atmosphere and the absolute pressure due to gravity and altitude. It works the same way on any planet with an atmosphere but in high pressure atmospheres like Venus you need to add the compressibility factor for the mix of gases to the calculations. Gas Law, http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ideal-gas-law-d_157.html describes the relationships for most of the pressures and temperatures found in our atmosphere.

  4. FTOP_T says:

    Can you imagine the scientific literature that would exist if $500+ million dollars was provided to top scientists to prove:

    CO2 increases the cooling effect of the atmosphere.
    The importance of pressure on the surface temperature of atmospheric bodies

    The scientific community might actually advance science.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Think of the science and engineering advancement that would have been made if the Fabian Progressives had not deliberately trashed the US and EU school systems.

      Think of the engineering and science advancements that would have been made if the Fabian Banksters had not deliberately started wars.

      Think of the science and engineering advancement that would have been made if billions had not been wasted chasing Unicorn Farts.

      Think of the engineering and science advancements that would have been made if the Fabian Banksters had not deliberately crashed the world economy.

  5. richard says:

    streuth, if we really could get that much heat out of just having an increase of co2 our energy needs would be over.

    • Gail Combs says:

      If the test doesn’t come out proving CO2 is causing Venus to over heat they will change the results until it does.

      • richard says:

        I believe the mantle of Venus has not hardened , always wondered if that led to extra heat. Read the surface every so often almost becomes molten – with little observation perhaps my mind made that one up- I almost qualify for a climatologist.

    • Andy Mirlach says:

  6. Andrew Russell says:

    I first saw that great techie term “adiabatic lapse rate” in the book “The Cuckoo’s Egg” by Cliff Stoll, about how his post-doc astrophysics research into Jupiter’s lapse rate was interrupted by researching early computer hacking of military and university computers. I have ever since liked to throw that out at parties to impress people with my superior intelligence. But I got trumped by a smart Chem-E who answered with “fluvial geomorphology”! So now I am working on a grant application on how Global! Warming! Catastrophe! will destroy the fluvial geomorphology of the Mississippi River. I’m sure millions of taxpayer dollars are headed my way Real Soon Now.

  7. stuartlarge says:

    Hi
    I Dispute the statement lapse rate depends on gravity and motion (okay I am going against accepted physics here) but I do not believe motion is necessary, lapse is due to gravity alone and I believe in a static stable atmosphere we would still have lapse rate, I believe that transfer of heat between warm high pressure and cold low pressure does not happen because they have similar entropy.
    I wish it was possible to prove this with an experiment, like a vertical insulated tube several hundred meters high (no motion) with thermometers top and bottom, I am sure we would still detect a difference.

    • Gail Combs says:

      If you are talking gas (or liquid) you are talking motion. Brownian motion

    • AndyG55 says:

      uummmm..
      Temperature is a measure of the Kinetic Energy…… ie the MOTION of the molecules.

      The higher in the atmosphere a molecule is, the more potential energy it has (PE = mass x gravity x height), and the less kinetic energy (KE = 0.5 x mass x velocity^2), ie cooler.

  8. Steve Case says:

    The atmosphere on Mars is 95% CO2 and it’s so cold there it snows dry ice

  9. Enviro mental says:

    I incubate eggs. I need 50% humidity and 37 Celsius.
    If i forget to top up the water, the air temperature always increases as the humidity (GHG) falls.
    It’s the same with deserts and on the moon, lack of humidity (GHG) increases the day temperature and decreases the night temperature, and Venus with a ~100% GHG atmosphere has near zero diurnal temperature range.
    Wouldn’t extra co2 behave the same way as humidity in my incubator? in other words warming the nights and cooling the days.
    why would this be bad? isn’t that what gardeners, farmers, plants, animals and people actually want?
    The only thing that wouldn’t want it, that i can imagine, would be a banker.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually when you talk about water in the tropics vs deserts, you are talking about the latent heat of vaporization.

      If you suspend a thermometer in a pot of boiling water the temperature remains the same because the additional energy is used to transform liquid water at 212F(100C) to water vapor at 212F(100C) This energy is the heat of vaporization.

      What happens in the humid tropics is the extra energy from the sun causes liquid water to turn into water vapor. This means the temperature stays ~90 F to 95F above that temperature water evaporates forming thunderheads.

      I looked at the US eastern seaboard one year and afternoon thunderstorms consistently form up to around Fayetteville NC. Florida has thunderstorms about every two days out of three while as you go north it diminishes to about 1 day out of 3. After Fayetteville it becomes sporadic as the summer temperatures/sunlight energy are below the threshold.

      This explains it a bit better. Willis publishes his Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis Paper (has links)

      The energy in thunderstorms:
      http://www.damninteresting.com/rider-on-the-storm/

  10. The atmosphere of Jupiter is made of hydrogen which is not a greenhouse gas. Guess what?

    “The temperature and pressure inside Jupiter’s atmosphere increase steadily, due to the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism. At the pressure level of 10 bars, the temperature is around 340 K (67 °C; 152 °F). At the phase transition region where hydrogen—heated beyond its critical point—becomes metallic, it is believed the temperature is 10,000 K (9,700 °C; 17,500 °F) and the pressure is 200 GPa. The temperature at the surface is estimated to be 36,000 K (35,700 °C; 64,300 °F) and the pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa.”

    From the alarmist bible, Wikipedia

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s