Climate Alarm is Flat Earth Pseudoscience

The Flat Earther CONgregation

Climate alarm, and most of the field of climate (pseudo)science itself, is based on the postulate of a radiative greenhouse effect.

Where does the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect come from?  Where was it invented?  How was it derived?

It was from this:

greenhouse

That’s from the University of Washington’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences.  Here’s another independent, but identical, example:

Source: http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

That one is from Harvard University.

Question:  What is the shape of the surface of the Earth in those derivations of the radiative greenhouse effect?

Answer:  It is a flat line, i.e. a flat plane.

There you have it.  It is 100% incontrovertible.  You are looking at “science’s” very own work, its very own depiction of the Earth, its very own derivation, its very own geometry.

There is a modern-day field of science which treats the Earth as flat.  It is literally flat Earth science, producing, as can be expected, total pseudoscience.

And it’s not just this particular field of “science” which does this, because most of the rest of science supports and teaches this flat Earth science as well.  You will find astrophysics and astrophysicists teaching flat Earth science, you will find geology and geologists teaching flat Earth science, you will find physics teaching this, and thermodynamics teaching it, etc.

Science is literally teaching young people today that the Earth is flat, and that therefore sunshine falls uniformly on this flat Earth with no day & night, and that therefore sunshine has no ability to heat anything above -18°C, and that therefore cold air can make you hot.  Think of it: science is teaching young people today that if they go outside when the air is -18°C, that this freezing cold air which is freezing your skin and making you cold…is actually warming you up.

It couldn’t be any more ironic and ridiculous that the very people who accuse others of being “flat Earthers” for not believing in their pseudoscience, at the highest levels of academia, literally base their claims on flat Earth science!

What a joke.

“Once you have assumed the wrong ontology and epistemology, everything you subsequently say is automatically in error.”

-Hockney, Mike (2015-06-02). The War of the Ghosts and Machines (The God Series Book 28) (Kindle Locations 655-656). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

It’s deriving fiction, out of fiction.

Question:  Is your physics correct to start off, and can your physics be subsequently correct, if you treat the Earth as flat, with no day & night, with no rotation, with incoming sunshine being freezing cold at -18°C?

Are those things correct, you interminable bastards!?

Answer: Your answer says everything about you.  And we know what it says about you.

What’s worse is when people confronted with this finally agree that it is all pseudoscience, yet say that they still want to go along with the ideology associated with it anyway!

Boy, now that really says something about you.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Climate Alarm is Flat Earth Pseudoscience

  1. Yep, climate alarm is really on that level.

  2. Ed Bo says:

    So when my kid’s high school physics teacher showed them the derivation of a parabolic trajectory of a profile under earth’s gravity — which assumes a flat surface — I should accuse him of being a knuckle-dragging flat earther?

  3. You’re seriously confused by that example Ed? Wow, you’re actually much stupider than I had calibrated you for. And you were at the bottom already. I’ve just now had to expand the scale depth of stupidity for your sake.

    On a local scale for throwing a ball etc. the Earth is basically flat and such a derivation will yield useful results.

    But Ed, umm, Ed, you know, the entire Earth isn’t flat with incoming sunlight hitting a flat Earth. Your kid’s high school physics derivation would imply that nothing can ever get into orbit.

    Man you are so dumb.

  4. johnmarshall says:

    Well posted Joe. thanks.

  5. Cheers John.

    It starts with a flat Earth, and ends with heat flowing uphill from cold to hot, or heat being stopped from flowing or whatever. Something unreal leading to something unphysical/impossible.

  6. carlallen says:

    Also notice that:
    1) the atmosphere is reduced to a two layer solid–a “top layer” and a “bottom layer” and
    2) they both are emitting the same amount of IR radiation even though the tropopause is -60 degrees C and its emissivity is only about 0.2. In other words, the actual “top of the atmosphere” is only emitting about 25 W/m^2 of IR radiation.
    3) the down-welling IR radiation from the “bottom layer” of the atmosphere is simply added to incoming solar radiation as though it were new energy and
    4) all reference to emissivity is gone

    Be aware that these diagrams typically come from classes on “eco-science” or “social justice” and not from classes on mathematics or physics. I once wrote a professor at a particular university who was teaching an eco-science class, which included the notion that global warming is being caused by “greenhouse gases”, and asked him why he was teachings as true something that was 180 degrees out of sync with what was being taught across campus within the meteorology department. I am still waiting for a response.

    Carl

  7. Well said. I will say though that this diagram was taught to me in my astrophysics majors program during my undergraduate degree. In first year. Subsequently I have found the same diagram in my thermodynamics course textbook taken in 4th year undergrad. Which is quite ironic seeing as the text discusses the irreversibility and spontaneity of heat flow throughout, proving that heat can neither be sent back nor be stopped from flowing.

  8. Sunsettommy says:

    Ed Bo writes,

    “So when my kid’s high school physics teacher showed them the derivation of a parabolic trajectory of a profile under earth’s gravity — which assumes a flat surface — I should accuse him of being a knuckle-dragging flat earther?”

    You really are that clueless,since a true flat earth surface would have Gravity would be applied the same all across that surface. But since the planet is a sphere,gravity varies some across the UNEVEN surface,such as MOUNTAINS,Canyons and so on.

    The SUN radiance fall across around 52% of the planets surface every second of the day,the Earths planet being a SPHERE

    You THINK like a flat earther….

  9. Rosco says:

    Ed Bo is a smug clueless fool who is so self absorbed he cannot even see the stupidity of his own arguments.

    In other comments he writes :-

    “The SB equation gives you the radiative flux OUTPUT of an object as function of its temperature and emissivity. It does NOT give you the temperature of an object (transient or steady state) as a function of its radiative FLUX input! You should have learned this early in your first thermo class.”

    Yet he apparently has no qualms about the Washington University Diagram which does exactly what he says you cannot do – ” It does NOT give you the temperature of an object (transient or steady state) as a function of its radiative FLUX input! You should have learned this early in your first thermo class.”

    AND YET THIS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WRITE – 239.7 + 239.7 = sigmaT^4.

    But it gets even better – and many equally smug fools back him up in his BS.

    “You continue to use it in the second sense – temperature as a function of flux input – which is absolutely incorrect! This is what I mean by using the equation “backwards”. I defy you to find a single engineering or science thermodynamics text that uses the equation as you do.”

    Apparently he does not believe you can calculate the heating radiant input causes YET you can perform an “energy balance”, add up the radiant inputs and then calculate the temperature from the radiant output – which of course must equal the input ?

    In the above diagram what is the effing difference – radiant inputs add up to heat the surface to 303 K or total radiant inputs equals radiant output at 303 K ??????????????

    It’s nothing more than pseudo science mumbo jumbo BS semantics.

    But it gets even better – and many equally smug fools back him up in his BS.

    He writes these series of equations for an object with a constant input of ~523 W/m2, unit emissivity and area.

    “I will introduce a Case 3, with an ambient of 0K (“cold” space). Using the SB equation, we see that the Q(net) from the object of 310K to 0K ambient is 523 W/m2. This balances the power input to the object, so 310K is the steady state temperature of the the object IN THIS CASE (and only in this case). You CANNOT assume, as you did, that this is the general case.”

    Thus in vacuum space with only the CMBR assumed to be zero we have :-

    Q(net) = 523 = 1 * sigma (Tobj^4 – 0^4) and therefore T = ~310 K – 1.

    We take the object to an environment on Earth where the background temperature is ~253 K.
    He then writes:-

    “So let’s compare Case 3 and Case 2, replacing the very cold ambient of 0K in Case 3 with an increased ambient (but still cooler than the object) of 253K. What is the object’s steady state temperature in this case? It is simply the temperature at which the Q(net) from the object to ambient is 523 W/m2 so the object’s power output matches its input. So we have:

    Q(net) = 523 = 1 * sigma (Tobj^4 – 253^4) – 2.

    Tobj = ((523/sigma) + 253^4) ^ (1/4) = 340K” – 3.

    Firstly, I say he is just plain wrong as he holds the Q(net) as a constant – Q(net) does not have to be constant – it can and does vary.

    But let’s allow him the benefit of the doubt.

    What he is saying in the above equations is that you ADD the background radiation of ~232 W/m2 as the temperature is 253 K TO the “constant” radiation input to the object of 523 W/m2 – which must cause the object to be at a minimum temperature of at least ~310 K calculated from the 0K CMBR background equation – 1. above.

    So Ed Bo sees no problem with the transfer of heat from a background of 253 K to an object with a constant power input capable of raising it to AT LEAST 310 K !

    He then says this MUST increase the temperature of the object from 310 K to 340 K !

    Just rewrite his equation 3 to be Tobj = ((523 + 232)/sigma) ^(1/4) = 340 K !

    If that isn’t :-

    1. Transferring heat from cold to hot, and;

    2. Calculating temperature from a radiant input,

    then I don’t know what it is !

    Another quote from the clueless fool :-

    “You continue to use it in the second sense – temperature as a function of flux input – which
    is absolutely incorrect! This is what I mean by using the equation “backwards”. I defy you to
    find a single engineering or science thermodynamics text that uses the equation as you do.”

    Well here is a text that uses the SB equation in the manner he says is inappropriate :-

    “The Earth System Lee R. Kump, James F. Kasting, Robert G. Crane – 3rd Edition”. It is the text quoted in the Washington University atmospheric “science” course – as quoted at http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/syllabus.html

    True this isn’t a true science book but it uses the same “simple model greenhouse effect equations” used by everyone from Hansen, Lindzen and countless others to Spencer and his cronies.

    To claim that the “infra red radiation emitted by the bottom layer of the Earth’s atmosphere” has equal heating power to the solar radiation is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard and yet they do !

    What all these people who write stuff like “Conservation of energy (1st Law) DOES NOT constrain power flows! This is a vital point!” fail to see is they do exactly the opposite of what they say.

    And with all their claims about power in must equal power out the only explanation they can supply to cause the temperature to increase is to transfer “heat” from cold to hot.

  10. Lol! What fools.

  11. geran says:

    Rosco and Sunsettommy, I’ve tried to teach physics to Ed Bo on other blogs. He prefers to be a “climate clown”.

    We get to enjoy his attempts at humor….

  12. Pingback: Climate Alarm is Flat Earth Pseudoscience | ajmarciniak

  13. Ed Bo says:

    Joe: You’re right. You know, I’ve been such an amazing coward, hiding behind a false name, and hypocrite, accusing others of being cowards when I AM THE ONE hiding behind a false screen name.

    With my last comment – I was just seeing how trollish I could be. Truth is I am diagnosed with severe autism, have no friends, no life, and I dropped out of school at 14. Literally, I have less than a high school education. It is embarrassing…if you knew who and what I truly was. That’s why I use multiple false screen names, and spend my life trolling. That’s all the enjoyment I get out of life…is being a troll. It’s so sad because while I attempt to troll through your site’s auto-trash of my comments…I just keep being me! I just keep doing it. Maybe one day there will be a new type of psychological services for internet trolls.

    If I self-reflect on it…I realize how truly pathetic of a person I am. So that’s why I don’t. BECAUSE IT’S MORE FUN TO TROLL YOU DENIERS INSTEAD! LOL!! For the lulz!

    [JP: Ed…holy shit man. You got to get a grip buddy. Your comments are auto-trashed here, because of your admitted trolling. I pulled this one out of the trash so that we could all have a laugh…but I actually don’t think this is funny. I feel sad for you, sad that the world can produce what it has in you. Please seek help, or find peace, or whatever.]

  14. Sunsettommy says:

    Ed Bo, shows his true colors here:

    “If I self-reflect on it…I realize how truly pathetic of a person I am. So that’s why I don’t. BECAUSE IT’S MORE FUN TO TROLL YOU DENIERS INSTEAD! LOL!! For the lulz!”

    Which means you really have no arguments to provide here,just be a jerk instead. You had a wide open chance to provide your counter arguments,but you come across as child in replies instead.

    JP,correctly pegged you with this,

    “But Ed, umm, Ed, you know, the entire Earth isn’t flat with incoming sunlight hitting a flat Earth. Your kid’s high school physics derivation would imply that nothing can ever get into orbit.”

    Ed, there are MOUNTAINS,Hills,Canyons,Deep bodies of Water and more, on the surface of the planet. Heck the ATMOSPHERE is not a flat surface either,since it is wrapped around a SPHERICAL body.

    You are indeed dumb as hell.

  15. Haha, nice one Sunsettommy 😉

  16. Matt in Frisco says:

    Flinging noodles at the wall here.

    Kind of ad libbing some thoughts I have running through the mill recently- Planck’s formula for the energy of a photon also seems to dispute the rGHE conjecture. E=hv aka a warm IR photon from the sun-warmed earth’s surface hits CO2 (or any so called rGHE molecule) at altitude (-30 degrees or something around there depending on local conditions) a cold IR photon (longwave) from this very cold CO2 is emitted towards earth (infamous backradiation and rare since I believe IR scatters per Rayleigh generally speaking, ie usually going to go outwards especially given the geometry) is now claimed to hit the earth again and warm it (somehow) thus creating a new photon at E=h(v+x), x being some delta increase in frequency, ie energy, thus magically increasing the energy of the photon and thereby the temperature of the source….except that is something that never happens… unless you are a sophist con artist or incompetent trash bag scientist. Perhaps they’ve found a new way to reinvent the ultraviolet catastrophe? Perhaps, this is why they never offer any first principles approach to the foundation of the effect, because it doesn’t exist in reality and once they let the cat out of the bag it’s over. Too bad the cat is already out of the bag. Ontological mathematics is a pesky fellow for these scammers I think.

    Also busted out my Encylopedia of physics (McGraw Hill 93) again, nothing in there about any such rGHE effect either. Planck, Einstein, Rayleigh, Lambert etc etc, but nothing on this garbage worked out from erroneous Arrhenius. Nothing in any of my physics texts either. Nothing in any of my technical books anywhere (physics/chemistry/engineering texts). Of course most of them were published before the sophists got there garbage hooks into the printers, and all I have found in modern engineering physics texts are what you have above, garbage diagrams with garbage hypotheses. No quantum mechanics foundation that supports this garbage anywhere. I might also point out something that is critical in solving any engineering problem, which bothers me greatly about these scammers, are the constraints which one applies, ie assumptions in undertaking such a complex problem, I find that they never include them or they are very poorly founded if at all as you have so eloquently pointed out!!- perfect to your Hockney quote! That is a rather magical curiosity, no? In any of my engineering work we would have laughed someone out of the room with the foundation of how they’ve modeled a system.

    The work these people (the sophists and scammers in general) put together is a collective pile of manure.

  17. Yep that’s pretty good Matt.

    Indeed, the photons come in at high frequency, convert to low frequency, then bump themselves back up in frequency by no known mechanism.

  18. Matt in Frisco says:

    Thanks for the response JP.

    I would like to add that there are some effects I have come across in my further reading, that come close to doing what I describe above, but fundamentally do not achieve what is necessary for the rGHE- the Anti-Stokes shift (incl photon upconversion), etc. However, the Anti-Stokes shift doesn’t result with a warming material via absorbing low energy IR radiation, the emission of the higher energy photon takes thermal energy from the material to bump the photon energy up and then cools the material as a result of the production of the higher energy photon. For example IR light injected into specially designed and doped fiber optics will emit blue light (ex on wikipedia). This is not the conjecture of the described radiative Green House Effect though, in fact it is quite the opposite, whence it cools the material vs heats it, the Anti-Stokes mechanism doesn’t violate the Laws of Thermodynamics and the rGHE does. Photon upconversion suffers the same problem- the material is cooled as it emits the higher energy visible light photon- not warmed. Additionally, the Anti-Stokes effect (photon upconversion incl.) occurs under only special conditions with exotic and special materials, Terra firma has no such specially engineered materials, properties or conditions of any consideration that I am aware. All other similar such mechanisms (ie fluorescence, phosphorescence) result in drop of energy of the photon ie E=hv-Eisc (Jablonski).

    This is all gleaned from reading wikipedia entries on the topics listed.

    If I missed or errored in anything in my statements JP, please correct it. I am not a physicist by training (another one of those annoying engineers that the warmist sophists love to hate and ridicule).

  19. Great example and discussion Matt. Very interesting science and engineering that!

  20. Rosco says:

    The truly sad thing about the climate alarm religion and economic reality is that if any physics text book wants to be considered as a text for a university course these days it MUST include at least some section on the greenhouse effect.

    All of the texts now include the greenhouse effect – usually a few paragraphs of mumbo jumbo about transparent to incoming solar, opaque to outgoing infra-red.

    No real physics text books I have ever seen go as far as including actual equations or derivations – except for the soft science texts like “The Earth System Lee R. Kump, James F. Kasting, Robert G. Crane – 3rd Edition”.

  21. They just don’t think about what they’re actually doing. Stay tuned for a new post on why not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s