Crews battle Tesla battery fire at Moorabool, near Geelong

That makes 4 out of the tracked 200 grid-scale battery facilities thus far which have experienced fires… and the ecofreaks have plans to put just over 10,000 of these monstrosities across the US. You can imagine the mass evacuations to escape the toxic smoke, the environmental devastation necessitated by all the mining to build hundreds of thousands of tons of Li-Ion batteries (each of those shipping container-sized packs has 13 tons of batteries), etc.

As to “people who refute the GHE“… it’s refuted. No climastrologist or warmist physicist to date has been able to refute the data below… CAGW is dead.

“Trust the science!”, they say… “The science is settled!”, they say… yeah, well, even physicists are wrong sometimes, and the climate activists in white lab coats masquerading as climatologists (which we know as climastrologists) are seemingly intentionally so, seemingly paid to be so in order to push a leftist narrative.

Here’s a modern example of a physicist being wrong. He lost a $10,000 bet.

We’re losing our rights and freedoms. Object lesson: Don’t be wrong.

Carnot erred in assuming that heat is never consumed as work; Clausius erred in attributing ‘heat’ to the energy density of an object (‘heat’ is definitionally an energy flux, ‘temperature’ is a measure of energy density); Kirchhoff in formulating his original version of Kirchhoff’s Law used the term ’emissivity’ when he actually meant ’emissive power’; and Planck erred in clinging to a long-debunked radiative model, and his follow-on assumptions stemming from that led to his treating real-world (graybody) objects as though they radiatively emit willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient.

Planck correctly stated:

Conduction of heat depends on the temperature of the medium in which it takes place, or more strictly speaking, on the non-uniform distribution of the temperature in space, as measured by the temperature gradient.

Do remember that temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant… it is a measure of energy density.

In other words, Planck correctly stated that energy can only flow (the definition of heat) via conduction if there is a temperature (and therefore an energy density) gradient.

Where Planck erred is in his clinging to the Prevost Theory Of Exchanges (and its core tenet, the Prevost Principle) in regard to radiative energy, which led him to eschew scientific reality (that energy only flows if there is an energy density gradient), to wit:

But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).

The long-debunked Prevost Theory of Exchanges (first replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Heat, then by Quantum Thermodynamics) assumed that energy flowed without regard to energy density gradient, because only an object’s internal state determined radiant exitance. This led Planck to make the further incorrect assumption in keeping with the Prevost Theory of Exchanges:

We shall now introduce the further simplifying assumption that the physical and chemical condition of the emitting substance depends on but a single variable, namely, on its absolute temperature T.

He correctly stated that energy transfer via conduction was predicated upon there being an energy density gradient, but for radiative energetic exchange, he clung to the Prevost Principle (core tenet of the Prevost Theory of Exchanges, a long-debunked hypothesis from 1791 which was predicated upon Caloric Theory; which postulated that radiant exitance of an object was solely determined by that object’s internal state, thus energy could flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient).

Except the Prevost Principle would only work for an idealized blackbody object, and they don’t actually exist… they’re idealizations. And the object would have to be in an isolated system, and they don’t actually exist… they’re idealizations.

A graybody object’s radiant exitance isn’t solely determined by that object’s internal state, as the S-B equation plainly shows:
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h

Temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
T = 4^√(e / (4σ / c))

∴ q = ε σ (ΔT^4) A_h
∴ q = ε σ (Δ(e / (4σ / c))) A_h

Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1))) * m^2 

It is the energy density differential between warmer object and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance. The climate loons misinterpret the S-B radiant exitance equation for graybody objects. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower energy density gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) lowers radiant exitance of the warmer object (as compared to its radiant exitance if it were emitting to 0 K). The energy density differential between objects manifests an energy density gradient, each surface’s energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.

Thus, the climastrologists cling to the long-debunked Prevost Principle (whether they know it or not… and if they don’t know it, then they really have no business being anywhere near anything related to science) when they claim that energy can radiatively flow without regard to energy density gradient… and that leads to all manner of unscientific drivelry… ‘backradiation’, ‘Global Warming Potential’, the incorrect usage of the S-B equation in the K-T diagram and even in instruments such as pyrgeometers and FTIR spectrometers, and ultimately in their core narrative: CAGW.

It is all based upon mathematical fraudery, none of it is correct, none of it is physical, none of it is scientific. CAGW is nothing but a complex mathematics-based scam. It is little more than a rigged mathematical game of thimblerig, and few are quick-witted enough to catch the climastrologists palming the pea as they shuffle the thimbles.

1) The climate loons are, as usual, provably diametrically opposite to reality.
———-
The climate loons misuse the S-B equation, using the form meant for idealized blackbody objects upon graybody objects:
q = σ T^4
… and slapping ε onto that (sometimes) …
q = ε σ T^4

Their misuse of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance far above what it actually is for all graybody objects, necessitating that they carry that error forward through their calculations and cancel it on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow… which leads especially scientifically-illiterate climate loons to conclude that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law).

The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object energy density (temperature is a measure of energy density, the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant) from warmer object energy density. Radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon the energy density gradient.

Their problem, however, is that their take on radiative energetic exchange necessitates that at thermodynamic equilibrium, objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation (this is brought about because they claim that objects emit only according to their temperature (rather than according to the energy density gradient), thus for objects at the same temperature in an environment at the same temperature, all would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation), and they’ve forgotten about entropy… if the objects (and the environment) are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation at thermodynamic equilibrium as their insane take on reality must claim, why does entropy not change?

They cite Clausius out of context… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. They’re idealizations. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.

So the climate loons are forced to either ignore entropy completely, or to claim that radiative energetic exchange is an idealized reversible process… it’s not, and that completely disproves their blather.

Their mathematical fraudery is what led to their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient‘ narrative (in their keeping with the long-debunked Prevost Principle), which led to their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which led to their ‘CAGW‘ narrative, all of it definitively, mathematically, scientifically proven to be fallacious.
———-

2) CO2 isn’t a ‘global warming’ gas… it acts as a net atmospheric coolant at all altitudes except a negligible warming at the tropopause.
———-
That’s from an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.
That’s from the Clough and Iacono study.

Gee… adding more of the predominant upper-atmospheric radiative coolant causes more emitters per unit volume, which causes more emission per unit volume, which causes more emission to space, which causes a larger loss of energy from the system known as ‘Earth’, which causes cooling… who knew? LOL

It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse’ gases… remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection.

Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR. Homonuclear diatomics (O2, N2) have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision.

In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.

The environmental lapse rate would necessitate that the surface also warms, given that the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA (that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation).

The surface would also have to warm because that ~76.2% of energy…
… which is currently removed from the surface via convection and evaporation would have to be removed nearly solely via radiation (there would be some collisional perturbation of N2 and O2, and thus some emission in the atmosphere)…. and a higher radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.

The chance of any N2 or O2 molecule colliding with water vapor is ~3% on average in the troposphere, and for CO2 it’s only ~0.0415%. Logic dictates that as atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, the likelihood of N2 or O2 colliding with it also increases, and thus increases the chance that N2 or O2 can transfer its translational and / or vibrational mode energy to the vibrational mode energy of CO2, which can then shed that energy to space via radiative emission. (And yes, t-v and v-v collisional processes do occur from N2 to CO2… if you doubt me, I can post the maths and studies which prove it.)

Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the ~96 – 99.8% (depending upon humidity) of the atmosphere which cannot radiatively emit must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor below the tropopause and the largest contributor above the tropopause, water vapor being the main contributor below the tropopause) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space.

So can anyone explain how increasing the concentration of the major radiative coolants (H2O, CO2) in the atmosphere (and thus increasing the likelihood that Ar, N2 and O2 will transfer their energy to those radiative coolant gases and then out to space via radiative emission) will result in more ‘heat trapping’, causing global warming? I thought not.
———-

3) Water vapor isn’t a ‘global warming’ gas… it acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause.
———-
You know, the refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:

A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.

That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K / km).

The effective emission height is ~5.105 km.

7 – 13 µm: >280 K (near-surface).
>17 µm: ~260 – ~240 K (~5km in the troposphere).
13 – 17 µm: ~220 K (near the tropopause).

The emission profile is equivalent to a BB with a temperature of 255 K, and thus an effective emission height of 5.105 km.

The lapse rate is said to average ~6.5 K / km. 6.5 K / km * 5.105 km = 33.1825 K. That is not the ‘greenhouse effect’, it’s the tropospheric lapse rate. The climate loons have conflated the two.

Polyatomic molecules (CO2, H2O) reduce the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR), not increase it (dry ALR: ~9.81 K / km; humid ALR: ~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) by dint of their higher specific heat capacity and/or latent heat capacity convectively transiting more energy (as compared to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics), thus attempting to reduce temperature differential with altitude, while at the same time radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than they can convectively warm it… they increase thermodynamic coupling between heat source and sink… they are coolants.

9.81 K / km * 5.105 km = 50.08005 K (dry adiabatic lapse rate, due to homonuclear diatomics and monoatomics), which would give a surface temperature of 255 + 50.08005 = 305.08005 K. Sans CO2, that number would be even higher.

Water vapor (primarily) reduces that to 272.8675 K – 288.1825 K, depending upon humidity. Other polyatomics (CO2) contribute to cooling, to a lesser extent. The higher the concentration of polyatomics, the more vertical the lapse rate, the cooler the surface.

Also remember: the atmosphere is stable as long as actual lapse rate is less than ALR… and a greater concentration of polyatomic molecules reduces ALR… thus convection increases.

That’s kind of why, after all, CO2 isn’t used as a filler gas in double-pane windows… if it was such a terrific ‘heat trapping’ gas, it’d be used as such. It’s not. Low DOF, low specific heat capacity monoatomics generally are.
———-

4) Empirical examples:
———-
In fact, the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram…
… does exactly as I stated… it treats a real-world (graybody) surface as if it were an idealized blackbody object, with emission to 0 K ambient and ε = 1. That’s the only way that diagram can get to 390 W m-2 surface radiant exitance.
That’s proof-positive that they’ve misused the S-B equation to fit their narrative. Had they used the actual emissivity, they couldn’t have arrived at 390 W m-2 (see below), and had they used the proper form of the S-B equation for graybody objects, they’d not have even gotten close to 390 W m-2 (see below).

Their use of the wrong formula increases radiant exitance of graybody objects far above what it actually is:
… which necessitates that they carry those incorrect values through their calculation and subtract a fictional ‘cooler to warmer‘ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler‘ energy flow.

Thus, some of the loons come to believe that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (the basis of their ‘backradiation’ blather). This violates 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense… energy cannot flow from lower energy density to higher energy density without external energy doing work upon the system to push that energy against the energy gradient. Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object.

The equation for the radiation energy density is Stefan’s Law and a is Stefan’s constant.
e = aT^4

∴ T = 4^√(e/a)

In other words, temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant. It is a measure of energy density.

Keep in mind that Stefan’s constant above equals 4σ/c (which is sometimes known as the radiation constant), and ε is the emissivity modifier for graybody objects.

Which is why: U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.

This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT^4 = T^4 4εσ/c, when including the graybody emissivity modifier ε.

The S-B equation integrates Planck’s Radiation Formula (which calculates the energy density for a given wavelength) over all wavelengths.

F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy
U = internal energy
T = absolute temp
S = final entropy
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment

If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.

U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.

If ΔU = 0, then (ΔU * c/4εσ) = 0, thus no energy can flow.

U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T. That is radiation pressure, which sets up the energy density gradient.

Free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If U = TS, p_photon = u/3 = p_object, energy cannot flow because no work can be done. Helmholtz Free Energy is zero. Photon chemical potential is zero.

So in the real world, the energy density gradient determines radiant exitance, energy does not flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient and 2Lot applies always and everywhere.
———-

Upside down, backwards, inside out and diametrically opposite to reality… the natural state of every single liberal. Almost as if there’s something wrong with their brains. LOL