Climate science is bogus, real science may be in trouble

11/21/23: Update of yesterday's post:



Sometimes the asking of a question can lead to some insight. Ask Isaac Newton, who observed the apple falling, and started asking questions. It led to insights about gravity. Where would modern physics be if it were not for Newton's questions?

With that in mind, maybe one could ask a question about this question---How long does it take for lava to cool?

Thick lava flows can remain hot for decades. Now that is heat trapping, is it not? Note that under standard temperature and pressures, lava is merely rock. It is not a gas.

Obviously, what is normally a solid can hold heat for a very long time. It is a fact. How long would a gas hold its heat if it were freely able to expand into the universe? The answer is obvious---not very long.



end update:



It bears repeating that there is no such thing as heat trapping gases. By the way, what happens when heat is trapped? Heat flows from hot to cold, so something has to block the flow of heat. But what is heat? It is the energetic movement of atoms. Cold is the reduction of movement in the atoms, which stills down to nothing at absolute zero.

What happens to gases at absolute zero? Solid hydrogen can exist at that temperature. Generally speaking, gases will tend to either liquify or go to solid state when temperatures are close to absolute zero. It can be said then, as a general rule, that in order to change state from a solid to a liquid, and from that state to a gas, requires the absorption of energy.

Gases tend to spread out when they aren't being contained by some force. What holds a gas inside of a metal cylinder? It is the solid state of the metal that does it. What happens when a metal becomes liquid? Most metals are solid, but there are a few in liquid state at standard temperature and pressure. No gases are metal, there seems to be something fundamental about why that is so. Gases tend to be a low atomic number. That would also appear to be significant.

Metals may not be moveable at low temperatures. That' because of their greater mass. Therefore, it takes more energy to move the atoms, and thus raise their temperatures.

There's probabaly no scientific literature that claim what's coming next, but there does seem to be a strong correlation between the amount of energy required to heat a metal, as compared to heating a gas. Also, when a gas is heated, it tends to spread out if there's nothing holding it in one place. On the other hand, it takes a lot to melt a metal, and a great deal of energy is required to vaporize a metal, thus making it a gas.

While keeping its solid state, a metal is absorbing the energy. That can be said of it. On the other hand, a gas expands when heated, and while doing so, it cools down. Again, this is probably not in any literature, but gases are poor examples of heat trapping materials. If you want to trap heat, you use a metal. A gas will try to escape because it gets under higher pressure ( according to the gas laws). Higher pressure could break the container, and in doing so, the gas is freed, and can cool down.

In sum, something has to trap heat. That something is itself a force of nature, such as gravity or mass. Therefore, to trap heat in the atmosphere would require a lot of mass, or a deep gravity well. Also, chemical bonds may given enough force to hold the gas. But the gas itself cannot hold the heat for long without having something else to keep it from escaping.

If climate science was real, there would be no assertions of "heat trapping gases". The whole idea is absurd. It is against the nature of any gas to trap any heat. Indeed, it does the opposite. That is why AGW is total and complete bunk. For this foolish notion to persist means that real science is being shoved aside for the hocus pocus of the fake science of "climate science".