/sci/ - Science & Math

Because their world is theoretical, they use peer review for approval. But there is no such thing as peer review in the private sector; either something works or it does not, and everything is tested. Engineers who design gas-physics instruments must be correct, or their instruments fail, buildings might burn, and they certainly would be fired.

There are two trees of gas physics: the professorial-theoretical tree in academia, beginning in 1662, and real-world gas physics, taught by private-sector engineers, beginning in 1836. The professorial tree began in 1662 with Boyle’s law (pv=k, higher the pressure, lower the volume). American Meter company engineers invented the gas meter in 1836, the same dual-bellows meter that sits in front of your home. That began the non-theoretical tree, which is supported by real science — testing.

In the last half of that century, John D. Rockefeller began using American Meter instruments (turbines and diaphragm meters) to measure thousands of cubic feet of compressed natural gas into large tanks, and transporting them by train to New York. Apparently, a customer disputed the amount of gas sent. American Meter tested the diaphragms measuring the flow out at low pressure and the high-pressure turbines measuring gas into the tanks. They found the meters to be accurate; however, the readings were significantly different.

To test the correction factor of Boyle’s law, American Meter built a high-pressure test facility in northern Pennsylvania, which is still there. I toured it with them. They determined that Boyle’s law is wrong. The higher the pressure, the more wrong it is. They meticulously tested and created calculi that match the tests. These calculi are called supercompressibility formulas. Over the years, they have created fifteen formulas, AGA 1 through 15. Not one of them shows up in my advanced physics book. The book has pages of calculus derived from formulas that are wrong. Even the ideal (or universal) gas law formula is not precisely accurate. It would have to change with each gas to remain accurate.

There is no curriculum for gas physics in academia. Engineering and physics classes merely touch upon the subject with centuries-old (and misleading) postulates such as continuity of energy and thermodynamics. Professors have used these to leap to the conclusion that energy cannot be destroyed, or at least it migrates on and on. This is also false.

Theoretical gas physics is like theoretical math: it leads to false conclusions.

The true science

Energy does not migrate on and on. Kinetic energy (motion) is continuously destroyed in a gravitational field. Put bluntly, a six-year-old can see that a baseball rolls to a stop.

All matter, including gases, is affected by gravity. Temperature is the measure of kinetic energy. The definition of temperature is “an indication of the speed that atoms and molecules are moving” (Dorling Kindersley Science Encyclopedia, page 140). A heat source causes them to accelerate and collide with one another, and when they cool, they slow down. They do not go elsewhere.

Professors skip over this simple truth, the definition of temperature. Temperature simply speeds up and slows down — like the atoms in a mercury thermometer. Any migration of energy ends abruptly, like sand under a rolling baseball.

The empirical proof that an elephant weighs more than a mouse is observation. The scientific proof is to put both on a scale and weigh them. All agree that from 1950 to 1985, our atmosphere cooled very slightly. It did the same from 1997 to 2015. During both periods, carbon dioxide levels rose dramatically.

That is empirical proof that carbon dioxide does not cause warming. It is fifty-five years of proof. It is the elephant in the room.

We need to stop thinking, “It has to cause at least some warming.” No, it doesn’t — obviously, it doesn’t. The question we should be asking is, “Why doesn’t carbon dioxide cause warming?” That leads to the proper scientific conclusion: measure it.

In our first test, we conducted a test of vaporous (70 percent humidity) atmospheric air including carbon dioxide and other trace gases. The air–carbon dioxide mixture matched actual conditions.

The air–carbon dioxide mixture was isolated in our climate-controlled proving (test) room and heated. Once the heat source was discontinued, temperature dropped steadily at about 1 degree Fahrenheit every 32 minutes. During a typical sunny day, our atmosphere absorbs about 22 degrees Fahrenheit. The vaporous air-carbon dioxide mixture in this test cooled 22 degrees in about 11 hours, 45 minutes. This, by no coincidence, closely matches the cooling rate of our atmosphere.

In our next experiments, we tested pure carbon dioxide. We measured the time it took for carbon dioxide to cool 22 degrees once the heat source was removed. The cooling time varied between about three and ten minutes depending upon the type of container. The fastest cooling time was in a plastic container at 3 minutes and 47 seconds. Any container will slow cooling, so the gas in open atmosphere cools faster than indicated by the test.

In the atmosphere, carbon dioxide will therefore cool as fast as the Sun and vaporous air allow it to cool.

Even the vaporous mixture of all gases cools faster than 24 hours. Temperature does not, and cannot, accumulate in our atmosphere.

Yes, some gases absorb more heat than others; however, for how long does any of them retain that temperature after the heat source is removed? The answer is, certainly not long enough for the greenhouse theory to be true or to cause warming. Advocates claim that greenhouse gases retain temperature from day to day. There is no such thing.

And the notion that an increased number of parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause warming is also false. A metaphor might help here. Your car engine that heats to near a thousand degrees cools to cold steel by morning. It does not matter whether there are 200 or 400 cars in your neighborhood. Nor does it matter whether the engine is large or small. Without a heat source, they all cool quickly and at about the same rate.

In other words, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. Only in academic theory are there greenhouse gases that retain temperature from day to day. In the real world, they do not exist. The reason carbon dioxide causes no warming in our atmosphere is that it cools too quickly.

These tests further prove that no gas — whether carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, or even humid atmospheric air — retains heat from day to day. They all cool too quickly. Prolonged warming, if it occurs, is caused by the Sun.

To naysayers, we say, prove it. Prove it or stop creating destructive laws and rules based upon false theories.

We say to academics, measure it like real scientists. Build a laboratory like ours or Thomas Edison’s. Try to get carbon dioxide to retain temperature from day to day.

It is a simple test. We used precision instruments. However, this is a repeatable test that anyone can perform with hardware-store instruments.

>$22 billion in annual funding for universities and professors to study nonexistent global warming
>for the past 30 years
$660 billion pointlessly wasted
have the dark matter morons wasted more or less money than the global warming idiots?

>>15820739
How many billions did that telescope cost?

>>15820739
How many billions did Afghanistan cost?

>>15820740
JWST was $88 billion

>>15820661
4 years disproven and you retards still shill this fake?
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Jones_jo00100w.pdf

>>15820821
>nasa.gov
a government propaganda outlet, not a scientific organization. why are there so many people who come to 4chan just to regurgitate government propaganda at us?

>>15820821
was that tweet after the lawsuit?
because i do remember the flat graph being shilled by proponents, not the opposition.

>>15820847
>NASA is unreliable, but this unsourced graph is reliable
Fuck off.

>>15820661
I'm sure your wall of text will start a very fruitful discussion the 80th time you post this image: >>/sci/image/3n1JIB+dT8a1v+yn1IeFaA

>>15820875
>oh no he used the f word, how scary!!!
learn to control your emotions kid, nobody cares if you chimp out and cry like a baby

>>15820933
>oh no, you cannot swear
Grow up. And then fuck off. Or first fuck off and then grow up somewhere else, I don't care.

>>15820661
>comparing the global climate to the climate of Europe
Fuck off

>I screech degenerate profanities to show off how powerful I am
reddit tier

>>15821954

retention of heat isn't the mechanism of the greenhouse effect
It's actually the re-emission of infrared radiation that contributes to warming

The re-emission direction is random this means on average the more CO2 you have the more radiation get re-emitted downwards instead of leaving the atmosphere.

>>15820661
Keep trying, OP. Very beautiful effort. But let me tell you: you are a midwit trying to produce science.

>>15821963
Normos can't meme.

>>15822039
>using normos as an insult
>being proud of being abnormal
We used to bludgeon weirdos like you to death

>>15822054
Why is psychotic violence the go-to response from people like you?

>>15822056
Do you understand why people pluck out the weeds from their garden?

>>15822054
>we
You left your "we" back at reddit, normalnigger. The people who actually used to bludgeon weirdos to death would have started with you and your whole crew.

>>15822054
>muh violent revenge fantasies
learn to control your emotions or you'll never be able to think rationally

>>15822098
>muh violence is... le BAD
Another normo. You two should fuck each other.

>>15822123
Climate cultism is irrational. They chimp out with psychotic violence because they're unable to accept the scientific fact that the globe isn't warming due to human causes.

>>15822127
The problem isn't that they chimp out over false beliefs. The problem is that their false beliefs don't serve their own good but rather the interests of certain power-obsessed parasites.

>>15820821
it has been debunked numerous times including people's own research on /sci/ if you check any archives like >>15820876 shows. trolling is against the rules but jannies don't do their jobs anymore

>>15822163
> the interests of certain power-obsessed parasites.
those parasites employ an enormous army of paid shills

>>15822667
The only paid shill is the guy who keeps posting fake news here. >>/sci/image/6jFbZEg1d2o8mt4MJLyTtQ

>>15822062
>I rationalize my out of control violent fantasy life

>>15822351
>anymore

Hey y'know guys climate science ain't real!

>>15820779
Wouldn't need a military if everyone on earth had guns.

>>15824083
>paying taxes so that the government buys guns
*disgusted wojak*
>buying the gun yourself
*delighted soijak*

>>15822062
I can imagine you sitting in your mom's basement fantasizing about being emperor of planet Earth and having all of your enemies put to death and then your mom interrupts the fantasy by bringing your some hot pockets

>>15824527
Is this post based on your life?

>>15824089
>paying taxes so that the government buys guns
>the government immediately gives all the guns away to ukraine and then demands more taxes
>so you pay even taxes so that the government buys guns
>the government immediately gives all the guns away to israel and then demands more taxes

>>15820661
>>15820664
>>15820665
>>15820668
>>15820670
Good article
gretafags didn't read the full text and only responded to the OP pic because gretafags don't understand science because they're too low IQ

>>15822054
"Normal" and "weird" is completely a relative term. It does not characterize anything, only states the fact that one thing is merely different from another. Objective speaking, and even before that obviously characterizingly soeaking, "healthy" is a term I like. And objectively speaking, you and the extreme most of humanity are not healthy, evil being an illness as well of course. Just imagine how broken do you have to be inside to say "we used to bludgeon weirdos like you to death", fantasize about doing it, enjoy it, be proud of it, think "it's the right thing" and proudly promote it.

>>15822127
is the radiant heat index higher in an open grass field or a parking lot of equal size during the middle of a summer day?

>>15826951
irrigated formerly barren wasteland far outpaces the size of parking lots. just leave the urban environment that you hate since living there upsets you so much, pretty obvious solution.

>>15826951
That's local warming not global warming, but I do agree with your ultimate premise. Urbanists shouldn't be allowed to cover more valuable rural and suburban land with their bughive slums because urbanism reduces human quality of life.

>>15822127
>the globe isn't warming
it isn't warming at all

>>15828892
Thanks for the daily necrobump.

>>15827387
This shames the urban bugman.

Truly amazing that the mods set this thread to autosage to avoid the publicity of deleting it outright.

>>15829017
It's not on autosage. Take your meds.

>>15829027
>It's not on autosage.
it isn't?

>>15829595
You just bumped it, retard. Did all the conspiracy theories eat your brain?

>>15820661
So, can someone explain why OP's argument implied by his charts are disingenuous/wrong?

Basically, why were the middle ages hotter if there was no evil big oil filling the world with CO2? and why would it be so bad if we went back to those temps?

>>15830849
>So, can someone explain why OP's argument implied by his charts are disingenuous/wrong?
He isn't. The OP is right.

>>15830849
Milankovitch cycles, same thing that determines when ice ages start and end. CO2 doesn't cause global warming, if it did then Mars would be like 60ºC hotter than it is due to the greenhouse effect caused by CO2, but Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect at all

>>15831909
Nonsense.

>>15830849
>>15830867
>>15831909
His graph compares global climate to the climate of Europe and his post is made up gibberish.

>>15832175
No one mentioned overpopulation. Meds?

>>15832118
Both the MWP and the Little Ice Age appear in global coral proxies. They were global events.

>>15832325
Prove it.

>>15832339
S.Y. Cahyarini, et. al., Warming trend during Medieval Climate Anomaly in Tropical Maritime Indonesia: Records from Porites Corals

>>15832351
It explicitly doesn't say that it's a global effect. It says "well, we don't know. But here's data from Indonesia. Also, today's global warming is much worse than the medieval warm period"

>>15832351
That study does not say it's a global effect and the subject of the study does not provide evidence that it was a global effect. Would you like to try again, or would you like to admit that you're spreading propaganda?

>>15832361
>>15832366
And now the goalpost-moving begins. "It wasn't global, it was Europe only." -> "Just because it affected antipodes, doesn't mean it was global just randomly antipodean." -> "Just because it's global, doesn't mean it was warmer than today." -> "Just because it was warmer than today, doesn't mean the data is legitimate."

>>15832373
Your task was to prove that it was a global event. You failed. No goalpost was moved. You simply failed. Would you like to try again, or would you like to admit that you're spreading propaganda?

>>15832376
By lying from the beginning you've already conceded the argument to me. Anyone who knows anything about historical climatology will see you for what you are.

>>15832373
>>15832378
You were supposed to prove the following:
>Both the MWP and the Little Ice Age appear in global coral proxies. They were global events.
You have not proved that.

>>15832378
>By lying from the beginning
Lol take your meds. You claimed that the medieval warm period was a global event and failed to back that claim with evidence.

>Anyone who knows anything about historical climatology will see you for what you are.
The irony. So that means that it should be pretty trivial for you to find proof of your claim, right? Would you like to try again or admit that you're spreading propaganda?

>>15832627
You claimed that the medieval warm period wasn't a global event and failed to back that claim with evidence.

>>15833859
That's not how the burden of proof works. You made the original claim which I can dismiss without evidence until you provide evidence for your argument. The medieval warm period was not a global event. I dismiss that notion without evidence because you have not and cannot substantiate it.

>>15830838
>how is world hunger real if I just ate a sandwich?

>>15833867
> That's not how the burden of proof works.
Then you should’ve replied with “no” to the original demand “prove it”. Your Dunning-Kruger brain was too proud. You tried to weasel your way through and you failed. Come on, at least have the decency to admit what happened and what everyone can see here.

>>15833920
>Projection
>Still no evidence
You are really fucking up, man. You claimed it would be trivial to get that source and yet the only thing you've posted is a study that does not corroborate your claim. How many more posts will it take for you to prove that the medieval warm period was a global phenomenon? I don't think you'll ever provide evidence for your claims.

>>15833904
world hunger isn't real real, the last time there has been a famine that was of natural origin was the 1860s. all subsequent famines have been created by communist governments

>>15834947
True and the upcoming climate induced famines will also be indirectly caused by humans

>>15833867
>That's not how the burden of proof works
yes it is

>>15834947
Idk man, certainly doesn't look like it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

>>15836056
Lol no.

Now that we've proven that the Medieval Warm Period was global, what do we do? How does that impact the climate chaos claims if we know that it was hotter before industry and CO2?

>>15836248
You have failed to prove any such thing. Would you like to try again?

>>15836248
>hey if I just wait a few days they want remember that I never proved anything

>>15835386
how is global warming going to cause famines? plants grow better in warm weather

>>15837003
?

>>15831909
Mars is further away from the sun and thus has a lower solar flux, furthermore its atmosphere is so thin it only has 0.6% the surface pressure the earth does. Naturally it doesn't trap as much heat, are you pretending to be retarded?

>>15831909
Climate models account for solar cycles
>>15832373
Here is your global climate anomaly bro
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
Also https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

>>15837140
Global warming would also increase the air moisture content due to ocean surface evaporation. Deserts would shrink due to excess moisture in the air.