You just gotta go check out this comment on a previous post. It is amazing either how little these guys can do basic mathematics, or how on purpose they create their lies and sophistry. What do you think it is? I think they’re doing it on purpose, and in any case, that level of stupidity is malicious.

https://climateofsophistry.com/2014/11/20/gift-of-the-steel-greenhouse-keeps-giving/#comment-17969

This is how *they all* behave…they all do this exact same type of disgusting sophistry. That comment just takes the cake because I even used “Ed Bo’s” very own math and physics to demonstrate the ridiculous results IT arrives at to debunk itself.

Thanks for the laugh “Ed Bo”…LOL! 🙂

And thanks for the help. I really appreciate what you’re doing here, and I hope the outcome determines what it needs to. All the best, you have my gratitude.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

Joseph,

I am new to this blog and I have been looking back at some of your past posts and comment discussions. You have a tendency to go off the deep end so to speak when it is not required. You do not have to get so personal and so offensive to make your point. Profanity is the refuge of the ignorant and the unintelligent. As soon as you go there you reduce the impact of your message, not increase it.

For the comment in question simply quoting the passages that show the person’s error would have been enough. Those of us in the audience will see the lies for what they are. Stupidity is it’s own punishment. Shine a spot light on the lack of logic and basic comprehension. Trust your readers to do the rest.

OK Opinionated I’ll edit. I don’t mind language like that myself…I read it as righteous indignation.

Joseph: You have a very good mind, and have a knack for seeing and visualizing physical phenomena. Your ability to conceptualize and use rigorous mathematical methods is excellent. So, as one of your readers I know some of the people that are in the group of sophists can drive you up a wall, but, with clear thought and concise presentation by you, these charlatans are exposed. I agree with Opinionated–trust your readers to see through the lies. Your work is important to many people, as it is based on the pursuit of mathematical and physical scientific truth—or more of a foundational axiomatic methodology to view the wonder of nature. Keep up the good work.

Joseph,

Thank you for responding so positively. It reads so much better now and the lack of understanding by the two commentators in question is very obvious as there is now no “noise” to interfere with the message.

You have to remember that well over 50% of person to person communication is non verbal. You loose that with a blog. So what can be expressed as righteous indignation with profanity in person is not going to come across like that in a written comment. Please keep that in mind when you write. The medium of writing dampens the emotional content of the intended message. It is in some ways a more “pure” form of communication. Embrace the purity. Avoid the noise.

Thank you.

Joseph,

I am wondering if you could write up a “grade school” version of the way the atmosphere really works for your readers. I would love to have such a resource to link to and to give to some friends who are believers in CAGW but just don’t have much knowledge about the science of the atmosphere — only the propaganda spread by the alarmists. Please consider that. (or point me to the post if you have already done that)

~Mark

I don’t think I have a version like that Mark. I could do it though. I’ll remember your comment and link you when I do it.

The commenter “Ed Bo” is pointing out a legitimate error. The error is obvious if you look at equation 2 on the same page: the units don’t balance. The units of the left-hand side are Joules/second (= Watts), while the units of the right-hand side are Watts/square-meter.

The LHS is energy flux (per unit area), but the RHS isn’t. This error carries through the rest of the calculation.

[JP: Here’s the calculation:mC

_{p}*dT/dt = 0 = P_{0}/(4πR_{sp}^{2}) – σT_{0}^{4}T

_{0}= [P_{0}/(σ4πR_{sp}^{2})]^{1/4}and so the results are the same down the page because the area always ends up underneath P_{0}. Basic algebra.]Thanks, but your first equation is still wrong. The LHS has units of power (W), but the RHS has units of power per unit area (W/m2).

You made a similar mistake in your manuscript

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

in equation 9. In equation 8 you have the correct units, Watts, but in equation 9 you have the identical expression on the right-hand side but you write the units are W/m2.

[JP: As I said, the algebra works out the same, so the same results are found. When considering unit area the area term can be neglected (i.e. left out of writing it down explicitly), but I agree that much can be confusing for people not comfortable with the inferred physics of what the equations are doing. Maybe I’ll update it though, just so that the physics vs. a simple understanding of the math doesn’t confuse people.]JP wrote: “As I said, the algebra works out the same, so the same results are found.”

No, it definitely does not. You are, here and in your manuscript, confusing power and energy fluxes. You are setting powers equal to energy fluxes, and so obtaining unphysical results..

The unit area terms certainly can’t be “neglected” — they’re not small quantities in relation to others, they are a part of the fundmanental physics, of the very definitions you are trying to use. But you’re equating things that can’t possibly be equal, because they don’t have the same units.

You have a master’s degree in physics — surely you realize that units must balance on opposite sides of the equal sign.

[JP: The physical results are the same, in their debunking of the steel greenhouse and thus the climate science greenhouse effect. That being said I updated the Gift of the Steel Greenhouse thread just to prove to you that things work out exactly the same. Same for the paper you referenced, the area term isn’t a factor which changes the results, and it can be neglected because we assume unit area there…perhaps I didn’t explicitly state that, though I thought I did, so apologies if I didn’t and caused this confusion for you. Perhaps I will update the paper just to avoid that confusion in the future, since it can be sophized about. I think in terms of the physics and sometimes I assume too much that the readers will get it, but you’re right I should make it more “legally” perfect…though of course the physical results are all still the same etc. So thanks for this, it will help keep thing on target instead of distracted with minutia that don’t actually change the results in the end anyway.]And surely you see the problem in your manuscript between equations 8 and 9. You are in effect equating the left-hand sides of each, but in equation 8 the left-hand term is one of heat gain or loss, with no considerations of area at all, and in equation 9 you have a difference in fluxes, which are defined per unit area.

You simply cannot do that — I don’t see how to make it any clearer. It’s just as if you were equating the entire energy output of the sun (4e26 W) with its energy flux (63 MW/m2).

[JP: The preamble to that equation is:“Since dq/dt = flux, the temperature will change when there is an inequality between the rateof energy entering vs. that leaving the system through the surface, and so…”

Thus, I’ve defined it that way, and everything else then follows on. Again, it assumes unit area if you want to look at it that way, but that provides an opportunity for sophistry and distraction away from what are the same results in any case. So it’s fine, I can update it to make it appear with area, and then the same results follow because it’s just a scaling term.]JP wrote “The preamble to that equation is: “Since dq/dt = flux…””

And that is wrong. That’s exactly where you go wrong.

The units of the LHS are Joules/second. Watts. Right?

The units of the RHS are flux: Watts/m2. Right?

Then how can they be equated? They can’t.

No, you don’;t “assume unit areas.” Your sphere and shell have radii Rsp and Rsh. Most of the time you correctly multiply by their areas 4*pi*R^2. But at other times you don’t, such as when you write “dq/dt = flux.”

Your analysis is fundmentally wrong, as Ed Bo said.

[JP: No, I’ve defined the terms that way, and the results work out exactly the same, because you can assume unit area.In the paper, the discussion isn’t even about spheres and shells with different area, but generally the only thing being discussed is a 1 m^2 area, and therefore, the area term isn’t written, because it’s value is

1. Do you get that? If the value is one, multiplying by one has no effect.Simple things like this are what I use to identify who is a hostile sophist who have no intention of being honest about this subject. They always walk right into it. 🙂

As far as the “Gift of the Steel Greenhouse” article, I updated it for you in the way you want to see the terms written, to show you that you still get all the same results with the steel greenhouse debunking itself.]Joe, I would caution about engaging with Appell, and further I would consider dumping him altogether. He is nothing but a sophist and a liar. He will simply spin you in circles ad nauseum with endless bullshit. He is a climate alarmist to the Nth degree, and full blown activist. He cares not for the truth.

squid2112: Instead of name-calling, how about discussing the science I’ve presented?

I am not a liar and I do understand the science (I have a PhD in theoretical physics). “Dumping” me merely shows that you are afraid of countering opinions, and that the only way you can maintain your position is to purge people who disagree with you. That is most definitely not how science is done.

[JP: Just because you have an opinion doesn’t make it valid. As it is, your opinions have been reviewed and analysed, and you’ve been debunked.]