Retailer meatpackers in Chicago chopping off high frequencies.Clouds act as heat energy retailers between a warm Earth surface and a cold outer space.
We know that retailers increase the producer price/income, as compared with a direct outlet sale.
Similarly clouds increase the temperature at the Earth surface, as compared to a direct outlet to space a cloudless night.
But retailers do not send goods back to producers, and similarly clouds do not back-radiate to the Earth surface.
Each retailer degrades the quality of the product by transport/unpacking/packing/transport, and similarly clouds degrade high frequencies.
Similarly, repeated analog xerox copying degrades the quality, as does uploading images on your web page at lower resolution.
Inlägg
The analogy makes no sense. Obviously clouds radiate; any body with a temperature above absolute zero radiates. Do you seriously think they only radiate upwards?
SvaraRaderaYes, they sell heat energy upwards.
SvaraRaderaDo you seriously think they only radiate upwards?
SvaraRaderaIf you are at the surface of the Sun, can you then see the Earth?
SvaraRaderaAs so often, you simply ignore the catastrophic flaws in your arguments, and fly off on some other crazy tangent.
SvaraRaderaYou simply don't understand. Your frequent comments lack constructive content. It is time to direct your attention to some other blog, or write one.
SvaraRaderaClaes, have you ever met anyone who "understands" your ideas? What do, for example, your colleagues at KTH think?
SvaraRaderaI have had many ideas, which have reached out, see ISIHighlyCited:
SvaraRaderahttp://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/browse_author.pl?page=0&link1=Browse&valueCategory=0&valueCountry=155&submitCountry.x=21&submitCountry.y=12&submitCountry=1
Hopefully I will get some more.
Thomas Palm @ 00.23:
SvaraRaderaOf course Claes have followers who do understand his writings.
This is the most brilliant blog of all, and I do hope Claes is not detracted by those who do not share his personal views and consequently can not see the merits of his reasoning.
Claes, I am aware that you have produced lots of cited papers in your own field, I'm referring to the kind of stuff you bring up on this blog like your skepticism to relativity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. And anonymous admirers like Dan doesn't count.
SvaraRaderaWell, if you have discovered new truths in one field, there is a chance you can do it also in a nearby field. To say what everybody else says as unreflected consensus, is not so interesting, to me at least. My blog gives me a chance to reflect about new things. You don't have to read it if you don't like it.
SvaraRaderaShould I take that answer as that you haven't actually been able to convince anyone? You just write here because you understand that your musings can't survive peer review?
SvaraRaderaNo, I also continue publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But peer-review
SvaraRaderaafter climategate does not mean anything.
Well Thomas, we have met before and I really think you would benefit from listening to what Claes has to say and maybe even learn something. Sometimes the other guy is right, you know. Don't be so afraid of breaking any consensus, that is what science is all about. It's like a ladder, one step at a time will get you to the top. Doing it in one stride is impossible.
SvaraRaderaClaes, what does climategate has to do with the credibility of peer review? And what peer reviewed articles do you have about your ideas about blackbody radiation or relativity?
SvaraRaderaDan, claiming that we have met without giving your full name is kind of pointless, as is claiming that Claes is right without giving any argument backing him up.
My experience is that the better my science is, the more opposition it meets including peer review.
SvaraRaderaThomas, we have met on other blogs and never agreed on anything. I was hoping the comments on this blog would be about ideas and not about stating what is right and what is wrong.
SvaraRaderaI cannot claim to know if Claes's ideas are correct or incorrect. However, he writes about things that interest me, such as Theory of Flight and Relativity. We all have problems with understanding these subjects and Claes's work touches on my own way of handling the difficulties.
Re. Relativity, I think Einstein said that the finest outcome of his theory would be if it was the basis of another, more encompassing theory. I think it is time for that now.
Maybe the difficult parts of relativity is not something to spend a lifetime understanding, but in fact are flaws that need to be adressed.
Dan, earlier you said "Of course Claes have followers who do understand his writings", but from what you say now you aren't one of them as you cannot claim to know if Claes is right or wrong. So who are these followers who understand and agree?
SvaraRaderaWhile no one thinks general relativity is some kind of final theory (since it's incompatible with quantum mechanics) I'm afraid that any more complete theory will be even more complex.
Cleas, what does climategate has to do with the credibility of peer review?
Climategate shows that good science is blocked and corrupted science is published.
SvaraRaderaClaes, no it doesn't except in the minds of conspiracy theorists. If you want a real scandal read about this:
SvaraRaderahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
What Climategate represents is probably the biggest scandal of science ever.
SvaraRaderaIf anything the comments on this blog show that climate science is a complete mess.
SvaraRaderaThomas, there is no contradiction in on one hand understanding what Claes writes and on the other hand not knowing if it is true or not.
SvaraRaderaThis is where alla debates with you end, a fight over words. I will not continue this exchange any longer.
Claes, just repeating the accusation instead of coming with supporting arguments doesn't help, and claiming it is "the biggest scandal of science ever" is a sign of desperation.
SvaraRaderaI agree with Dan.
SvaraRaderaClaes, well if you are unwilling to back up your serious accusations with any facts then I guess further discussion is pointless.
SvaraRadera