Dogs and their Interests

In his recent speech on climate legislation, Mr. Obama quipped:

“Regarding climate change, we don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.”

Mr. President, time for you to be Slayed! (oh hiiiiii NSA…booga booga!)

Let’s have a look at a typical model of the energy input and output to the Earth, as forms the basis of the entire field of climatology and related alarmism, warmism, luke-warmism, and even most of outright scepticism:

The standard energy balance formula and diagram.
(Source: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html)

Almost everybody accepts these energy balance models for solar and terrestrial energy, and every Tom, Dick and Harry has their own version, but they all basically follow this same format.  The Kiehl-Trenberth climate model is such an example.

The following is a lesson in rationalism, in how to think critically rationally.

Question 1:  In the above diagram, what is the name of the geometric shape which forms the surface of the Earth?

Answer 1: A line.  (Alternatively, a plane).

Question 2:  Is the geometric shape from Q1 curved, or flat?

Question 3:  What is the name of the geometric shape of the Earth?

Question 4:  Are the geometric shapes from A2 and A3 the same thing?

Question 5:  Does the above figure represent the Earth?

Question 6:  Does the above figure represent any of the physics of the Earth?

If you would have independently answered the above questions as their answers indicated, and you understand why you would answer in such a way, then congratulations, you are a rationalist!  You can actually think critically.

Any alarmist, warmist, luke-warmist, and most sceptics would have gotten severely hung up at Questions 5 & 6, and wouldn’t have been able to answer them at all or at least not without major reservations.  The only critically rational answers are the definite answers provided.

The above figure is from the University of Washington by the way, produced and believed in by people who actually think they qualify as PhD’s in science!  And then other people who have high-school training in science (if that) believe in it too.  How cute for all of them.

And kind of amazing, in the sense of when you first witness your dog eat its own poop…a kind of witnessing amazing stupidity.  It is quite surprising the first time you see your dog doing this.  Although, there are reasons why dogs eat their poop sometimes;  …there is no natural reason other than fraud and/or stupidity for people to not be able to answer Questions 5 & 6 correctly.  The answers for 5 & 6 follow directly from the previous answers of 1 through 4…there is no rational way to get around that.

Maths of Obama’s Flat Earth Society

Obama, and all alarmists, warmists, luke-warmists, and sceptics, believe that the Earth is flat.  They literally form the Flat Earth Society.  They all believe that the Earth is flat because they commensurately desire to believe in something called the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” (or more generally the ‘greenhouse effect’ [GHE]).

Only the Rationalists do not believe that the Earth is flat, and therefore only for the Rationalist does the possibility exist that they do not have faith in believing in the greenhouse effect.

Let this distinction be clear: sceptics are not rationalists.  You will find no sceptics not believing in the greenhouse effect and hence not believing that the Earth is flat…this makes the sceptics the most curious and self-contradictory group of all the believers.  Isn’t it amazing for a person to call them-self a sceptic, while at the same time they will not be sceptical about the Earth being flat?  Dog, meet poop.

Mathematically, the spherical Earth is turned into a flat plane by averaging the solar input over the entire globe.  That’s what you see occurring in the above figure.

Question 7:  Does the Sun shine on both the night-side and day-side of the Earth?

Question 8:  Does averaging the solar input over both night-side and day-side create a model representing the Earth?

Isn’t rationalism so clear, and simple?

The standard energy model of climatism averages the energy fluxes over the entire globe, discarding day and night by transforming the real spherical geometry into a fictional flat plane.  Mathematically, this requires a reduction in the solar intensity by a factor of four, because the solar power gets distributed over a larger surface area (the night-side) where it doesn’t actually impinge.  This solar-power-reducing-model therefore imagines the solar input to the planet to have a temperature forcing value of -18C.

With solar input so cold, an arbitrary and entirely nonsensical invention is created where a cold gas heats up a warmer surface.  This is what you see in the energy model diagram from above:  The atmosphere, not actually being a source of energy because it has no continuous chemical or nuclear release of energy ongoing inside it, is conjured to provide an equal amount of energy input to the planet to what the Sun provides!

Trapped Heat doesn’t Cause Heating but it Heats

The people who believe in a flat Earth sometimes know that making the atmosphere a source of heat as strong as the Sun is patently ridiculous, and so sometimes they claim that “it isn’t about cold heating hot”, and get this, “but only about cold trapping heat”.

So let’s see: it isn’t necessarily about cold heating hot, but it is about cold trapping heat, even though the only heat that cold traps is the temperature of the cold, and this cold temperature trapped heat causes hot to become hotter.  Is insulation in your house a source of heat?  Does insulation in your house provide an equal amount of heating power to what your furnace produces?  Does insulation in your house bump up the production of heat energy from your furnace by a factor of two?

That’s the type of idiotic irrational sophistry that you get from people who want to believe that the Earth is flat.  They’re so deranged that they’ll convince themselves of their own sophistry that cold things heat up hot thing by any some method, because they so desperately wish to believe that the Earth is flat.

Flat Earth INNN SPAAAACE

Let’s take Obama’s Flat Earth Society’s climatist diagram of energy flow of the figure back up above, and zoom out a bit so that we can see what this model looks like in space in relation to the Sun.

Climatology’s energy flow model of the Earth and Sun in space. Senseless, scienceless, stupidness.

Question 9:  Is the Earth a flat plane in space, twice the distance from the Sun?

Question 10:  Does an energy model with the Earth as a flat plane in space twice the distance from the Sun represent anything scientific or physical or realistic about the Earth and the Sun?

Answer 10:  No.  Nothing scientific, physical, or realistic, at all.

Question 11:  Is sunshine too cold to melt ice and evaporate water?

Answer 11:  No.  Sunshine IS hot enough to melt ice and evaporate water.

What would be a scientific, physical, and realistic model of the Earth and Sun?

In reality-based physics the Earth is spherical, Sunshine is hot, and the distance to the Sun is the distance to the Sun.

With an energy model created based upon the reality of the above figure, including water and a rotating planet Earth, Sunshine is hot enough to drive the entire climate, as anyone would naturally expect.  The atmosphere, not actually being a source of energy, is never needed to be conjured as a source of energy in such a reality-based model.  The greenhouse effect is discarded as a fraud, because it makes no sense and was never based on a model that made sense, and it simply isn’t required.

Obama is Mocking You

So it really is that simple.  The reason why Obama’s handlers get him to say things like that is because they believe YOU to be that stupid.  They have created a flat-Earth model of the Earth in order to reduce the power of sunlight via a necessary mathematical consequence of doing so, in order to create something they call an “atmospheric greenhouse effect” to make up the difference with which they can blame everything on CO2.  They know it’s a lie, and they think you’re so stupid that you won’t get it!  When they call you flat-Earther’s, they’re laughing all the way to the bank!

From what I’ve read, because I had to figure out what was going on, dog’s eat their poop when they have a nutritional deficiency.  Likewise, Obama, alarmists, warmists, luke-warmists, sceptics and all flat-Earther’s can stop eating the poop of their own mental garbage when and if they’ll improve their mental diet towards rationalism.

Rationalists should start getting upset, and start doing something physical about this flat-earth sophistry.  How about sit-ins in university professor’s offices, where you sit there and mock their intelligence?  If there’s anything these flat-Earth PhD’s hate, it is a questioning of their vaunted intelligence!  They’re quite small little people for the most part, very small little minds, very fragile little emotions, prone to embarrassing mental and often even physical red-faced temper-tantrums, etc.

Draw a line on a piece of paper, divide the solar flux by a factor of four and write down the number above the line, and then draw an arrow down from this number pointing to the line, and ask them if this represents the Earth!  How hilarious, right?  The vast majority of them will say “yes”, that it does look like the Earth!  A line with an arrow pointing to it on a piece of paper – that’s what supposedly “modern science” thinks the Earth is.  We’ve seen PhD’s such as Roy Spencer, Robert Brown, and countless others, already demonstrate this fact for us.  And they’re the sceptics!

Stop being nice to these people and imagining that you can have a debate with them!  Just go out and make fun of how stupid they all are!  Why give ANY quarter to people who want your children to believe that the Earth is flat!!!???  They’re flat Earther’s who deny the distance to the Sun, lol!

Maybe they could be called “Solar Denialists“.

Question 12:  Are you a rationalist, or are you a complete and unremitted idiot of the likes of Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Al Gore, Barak Obama, Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, etc etc?

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Slaying Barak Obama and his Flat Earth Society: Obama is a Solar Denialist

1. Neil MAhony says:

Joseph Postma for prez!! Here are a couple of professors who need sit-ins:
Bridger Alison
Scheslinger Michael

2. Peter Weggeman says:

Mr. Obama moves into his next blunder. Unfortunately nothing we try to tell him will change any part of his Green dogma. One of his top science advisers is Daniel Schrag of Harvard. Director of Harvard University Center for the Environment, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, geologist, engineer, etc. He tells Obama “a war on coal is exactly what’s needed” (Wall Street Journal, June 26). Of course that’s for openers. Obama wants all fossil fuels and nuclear energy gone. I find it hard to believe someone like Mr. Schrag surrounded by the science and mathematics talent at Harvard and MIT next door would swallow the GW hoax. Where there is a trough there will be pigs….Russian saying.

3. These people seek the destruction of society and humanity. Do you think they could ever understand how relevant it is that the Earth isn’t flat? They could never appreciate it. How do you effectively communicate the relevance of a spherical Earth to people who don’t care if it is or not because their purpose is to commit murder, by whichever reasoning they can find to justify?

4. johnmarshall says:

I understand that there is a Flat Earth Society whose president believes in GLOBAL warming. Kind of oxymoronic.
Thanks for a good poke at Obama, he deserves every word against this rubbish.

5. Kristian says:

Joe,

At least three main factors are needed to explain Earth’s vastly elevated mean global surface temperature over that of the Moon’s surface (by ~90K): 1) atmospheric evening out of the diurnal amplitudes and regional/zonal gradients, 2) the huge thermal capacity of the oceans (and earth and air, but first and foremost, water), and 3) the weight of the atmosphere on the global surface, restricting free convective/evaporative heat loss. 1) only takes mean temperatures so far. 2)+3) do the rest.

Solar radiation is not a factor here. You cannot explain the elevation of terrestrial mean temperatures over lunar by way of insolation flux, evened out or separated diurnally. The Moon’s surface gains a lot more solar radiative heat than the Earth’s surface. And is still a lot colder. The atmosphere and the oceans indeed do the trick …

Rationalists need to incorporate all of these factors (+ the Sun of course; it is Earth’s (only) heat source after all, even though our atmosphere diminishes its purely radiative impact on the surface).

6. Don’t forget the two latent heats of H2O, in liquid and vapour.

7. And of course, I would not say that solar radiation is “not a factor”. Of course it is a factor. It drives everything. Including the latent heats.

8. Kristian says:

Yup 🙂

9. squid2112 says:

Joe, in your comment you hit the nail on the head. All of this garbage is precisely to commit murder, and on the most grand of scale. The goal is the de-industrialization of humanity, for three purposes. First for the purpose of population reduction by those that truly believe, or believe as an excuse, that humans are over populating the planet and need to be exterminated (eugenics). Many in this group don’t actually believe these things, but it is a mantra that supports their own interest so they agree with it (means to an end). Secondly, there are those who seek profit. This is the greedy group. They are the ones that will sell their family members for a buck. Never enough money, need to steal from anyone they can. Finally we have the power brokers. These folks simply want power and control. They wish to kill off as many as they can, enslave the rest, and control everything. This last group is perhaps the most dangerous as they are willing to give out riches to the second group to gain support and power, while the second group bends to help support the first. This is a wicked and vicious circle of foes to contend with. Fortunately, we serfs outnumber those three groups by millions to one. I think you are correct that we employ a zero tolerance policy when confronting these scammers (murderers). I believe it is very important to call-out these crooks and murderers at every opportunity. It is time to utilize the Saul Alinsky tactics against those that are using the Saul Alinsky tactics against us. It is time to fight fire with fire. I have personally come to the point of zero tolerance for these people and will shame them at the blink of an eye. I no longer pull any punches. And for those of you fitting into one of these groups I mention, you have been warned. This is about my family, my friends, my neighbors and my fellow man. For those of you in these groups, I will fight you to the death if necessary, taking as many of you with me as I can. And as a warning to those in these groups, you don’t have the upper hand that you think you do.

10. Damn right Squid, thanks for that, excellent. As an example, look at this note sent to my associate Joe Olson, from someone at Real Climate, just a couple of days ago:

Hydrocarbons form naturally, yes. What does that say about how we should use them? Nothing whatsoever. Your argument is implying that the fact that they exist makes them sustainable or justified to be used in an industrial manner? You realize everything in nature runs in a cycle as to ensure it’s continuity forever, you don’t think adding a linear industrial process to the ensemble will make it less cyclical? I would have to say that you are dumb for making such human-centric assumptions. Humans are animals. We have only used logic to achieve the same animalistic ends of wanting to survive and reproduce and feel emotions, and have not at any point actually done anything logical. Thus we have achieved nothing as a species except harm and put at risk the ecological balance which has perpetuated the survival of living things for billions of years. Think of it, it took over 3 billion years of R&D to make you, and you have turned out stupid and useless as heck. Population control should exist because of people like you, we have to get rid of the inadequate as does nature, make it more cyclical and sustainable.

Peak oil is real, it is an idea that can be derived theoretically in someones head with no data whatsoever. You agree that there is only so much oil correct? If you don’t agree with that then you ought to fix up your head. I am not even going to explain this because it is such a simple idea, there’s probably a 4th grader on youtube that can explain it for you.

And another note, the society in the book 1984 is only bad in contrast to your “bubble” of living standards, The book speaks of a utopia you fool! The whole idea of consolidating the world into one power is to achieve perfect societal predictability and control in light of the unsustainability in any other model! You want to live wastefully with 7 billion people on the planet, What if everyone else does? We would last less than a day in resources. The only possible way to alleviate the social unrest brought on by the industrial austerity that will be implemented to offset global warming is via societal engineering of this scale, so I suggest you actually think for once and suck up any whining that is a result of having to put your part in to save the planet – it is your home, you either only deserve to save it, or you deserve to die.

They really are a threat. People like you and I will have to form an underground “Illuminated” society if they get the 1984 “utopia” they desire.

11. It is just like any of the traditional Western religions: believe like we do or DIE. We’ll fucking MURDER YOU if you don’t think like us….BURN YOU, GUT YOU, QUARTER YOU, etc.

“Saving the planet” has replaced “saving your soul”. As simple as that. And the GHE is the “God” that is good and creates all life but will get angry and kill you if you don’t do what other people think it says!

12. Greg House says:

Jacques-Yves Cousteau in an interview to The Unesco Courier, November 1991, p.13 (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000902/090256eo.pdf): “World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

13. squid2112 says:

Damn right Squid, thanks for that, excellent. As an example, look at this note sent to my associate Joe Olson, from someone at Real Climate, just a couple of days ago:

OMG! This is one truly deranged individual. Yikes! There person desperately needs a rubber room.

“1984 describes a utopia”??? WTF … are you kidding me? Has this imbecile ever read the book? Seen the movie? .. holy crap. .. Utopia? .. no, it’s a fricken psychedelic nightmare! sheeesh..

Fortunately for us, people like that are too stupid to win this battle. They will be the first to be taken down, just for practice.

14. Rosco says:

Wood said it eloquently about a century ago:-

“The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the
atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the
atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to
me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing
the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”

Further he backed it up with a repeatable experiment. PROOF.

And of course that is what is missing from modern day climate “science” – they do not have even one shred of experimental evidence to support all their pseudoscience.

If the Energy Budgets mean anything other than a large number of people practicing mindless “groupthink” it ought to be easy for the geniuses to come up with an experiment to PROVE their assertions.

It isn’t rocket science after all – simply PROVE that 161 W/sq m solar radiation combines with 333 W/sq m “back” radiation to result in a surface heated to the point where it emits ~494 W/sq m at a temperature of 305 Kelvin or ~32 degrees C. Or use the figures above from the Uni lecture.

The principle doesn’t rely on using any specific temperatures – ambient temperatures will suffice – if their science is sound experimentally demonstrating it will be easy – it isn’t sound by the way.

Are these people so stupid they really think the radiation from 2 sources equivalent to 2 ice cubes in my freezer can combine to cause 30 degrees C “heating” or are they simply paid advocates.

I know some are that stupid – why else would they make such ridiculous public pronouncements ?

What I find mystifying is the response of academia – why has the “greenhouse effect” found its way into modern physics textbooks when the fundamental claim is not only dubious but ludicrous ?

They seem to think it is based on sound principles described by Planck et al but I can find no reference to where Planck et al claim it is valid to sum radiative fluxes as demonstrated by the IPCC and the energy budgets.

I think I have demonstrated there is serious doubt over the manner in which the IPCC portray “science”.

If their principles are sound they must PROVE it by experiment.

We – the general population – would be fools indeed to let an unproven hypothesis be the reason for all the potentially unnecessary costs associated with abandoning existing infrastructure – not only in dollar terms but diverting humanitarian aid to a non existent problem.

15. Greg House says:

Hi Joe,

I have just found this, maybe it deserves a special thread.

16. Yes I have been watching it and might comment later.

17. Samm Simpson says:

Joe – another nail on the head blog. The Obama nation’s call to create those mega carbon trading schemes on the backs of a mythic lie will be another trillion dollar scheme, but that bubble will burst – and they’ll short the market a day before. You’re right on about their intent to “kill, steal and destroy.” Owning and controlling Co2 is just one of the mechanisms, here’s a rant I wrote about a few others. http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/agenda-21-baby-boomer-rant.html

blessings to you Joe. Thanks for your commitment to truth and integrity.

Samm

18. Samm Simpson says:

Reblogged this on mediaispropaganda and commented:
Many folks who are against GMOs still believe that another mythic lie – that of the planet being destroyed by Co2 and the desperate need to de industrialize humanity. Joe Postma’s blog – Climate of Sophstry – does an excellent job at refuting the science behind the green mask. Just like the “science” Monsanto and the other biotechs “produce” to say genetic engineering is “precise,” the folks who are pushing for the next carbon tax credit global money making and industry destroying scheme are producing bad “science.”
When science is skewed to money and not empirical evidence, it’s not science anymore. Here’s Joe’s latest – Obama is a Solar Denialist. Thanks, Joe Postma!

19. Gregor says:

OMG. Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers. The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn’t absorb the energy from the sun directly due to the shorter wavelengths involved, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth since that heat is in longer wavelengths. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space. Every single one of these sentences is verifiable by experiment and has been verified by experiment. Denial of the greenhouse effect is completely irrational. Now, whether or not humans have contributed much to the effect over just natural changes in atmospheric composition is certainly debatable. It is quite likely that the claims of the severity of the greenhouse effect are exaggerated. And the way Obama dictates his will upon the world is not acceptable, including his unilateral methods of oppressing the coal industry in America. In my opinion, the subject needs a LOT more study before we can conclude that humans are contributing to the greenhouse effect at a significant level, and it is certainly unjustified to base policies on the incomplete science involved. But to deny the existence, which is based on basic chemistry, of the greenhouse effect is simply insane.

20. Radiation from a cold source does no go back and heat up a warmer source. There is no atmospheric greenhouse effect.