The Problem with Climate Alarm Skeptics

The problem with most skeptics is that they’re not good enough skeptics.  They’ve done a good job and they’ve been a million times more rational than the alarmists – really no comparison here at all in rationality and intelligence level – but for some reason they’ve never gone for the kill and they’ve also adopted some of the silly pseudoscience of climate alarmism.  I won’t share names but this email thread below is from a group of very well-known prominent skeptics:

SkepticA: “You do not understand radiation.

Ordinary heat transfer is a transfer of mechanical energy. All substances above absolute zero possess energy in the form of molecular motion and vibration. It is their energy that constitutes heat and its amount is measured by temperature. Mechanical energy can only be transferred from a substance with higher energy o one with lower energy. This fact is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics.

The energy of radiation is not mechanical . It is the result of alternating electrical and magnetic fields. It does not require a medium. Its energy is entirely determined by the temperature of the emitting object, and since every object has a temperature it is emitted from every substance above absolute zero. The energy depends on the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the emitting substance as derived by the Stefan Boltzmann radiation law.

Radiation energy is converted into ordinary heat when it is absorbed on any object or substance capable of it, regardless of the temperature of that substance. This process has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics.

It took a long time for scientists to understand the nature of radiation or indeed the mechanical nature of the other forms of heat transfer, so the old textbooks do not mention them.”

OK, firstly:  “All substances above absolute zero possess energy in the form of molecular motion and vibration. It is their energy that constitutes heat and its amount is measured by temperature.”

Wrong wrong wrong!  Thermal energy is not heat and neither heat nor energy is temperature!  From Schroeder in “Thermal Physics”:

“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat.  Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

So right at the introductory level we have people on all sides who can neither define nor not further understand what energy, heat, and temperature actually are.  I won’t define them for you right now but at least you have the textbook quote to cite that they are indeed not at all the same thing!  This confusion about thermodynamic things is par for the course of climate alarmism, its bread and butter.

In any case, this was my reply to the argument:

JP:  “I am sorry but this assertion “Radiation energy is converted into ordinary heat when it is absorbed on any object or substance capable of it, regardless of the temperature of that substance” is not true.

The transfer of heat and presence of heat flow for material objects is given by a 1st-order difference in temperature, typically looking something like Q = k(T2 – T1), with heat flowing from the warmer temperature T to the cooler one.

For radiation in a plane-parallel geometry similar to the material transfer scenario, the heat flow is Q = sigma*(T2^4 – T1^4), again with heat flowing from the warmer temperature T to the cooler one.  That is the radiative law for heat flow and it does function precisely with the same limitations as mechanical transfer.  If it didn’t, then you wouldn’t have this difference equation defining radiative heat flow where only the greater portion of energy from the warmer side relative to the cooler side can act as heat, exactly as with the mechanical case.

And with that, the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm is laid to rest as a false postulate, and climate alarm itself no longer has a basis in science.

One should consider that in either case – material heat transfer or radiant heat transfer – the fundamental force carrier of the heat energy is electromagnetism.  In material transfer it is via “virtual” photons, and at a distance it is with “real” photons.  In either case it is photons, and in both cases energy can only manifest as heat for that going from higher temperature to lower temperature.”

At this point another person on the chain joins in (unknown if skeptic or alarmist), and replies:


Hi Joseph,

Although this may be splitting hairs,

  1. Your equations are correct.
  2. They imply that energy can be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body…
  3. But that net energy flow is always in the direction of hot to cold, in accordance with the 2nd
  4. And your equations do not invalidate the proposition that “Radiation energy is converted into ordinary heat when it is absorbed on any object or substance capable of it, regardless of the temperature of that substance”.

Regarding the latter.

A photon, regardless of source and of the temperatures, hits an absorbant molecule. What happens?

  1. The molecule warms up – the energy of the photon is converted to vibration,

  2. Subsequently the molecule may pass that energy on somewhere else, either by emission of a photon or by collisional transfer to another molecule. In the case of atmospheric gases, the latter is most likely – the chance of radiation of a photon before collisional transfer is minute, something like 10-9.”

This sort of response has been best characterized by a commentator here as:

“They seem to employ a pattern of agreeing with certain basics of JP’s thoughts and then trying to hold onto some vestige of the very idea that their conceded belief defeats — ambivalent to the point of confusing things even further, using such complexity of convoluted thought that ordinary humans have a hard time grasping what their error is. You need a PhD in math to understand the most advanced errors, it seems. And THIS is the advantage that some of these people seem to have. They have greater technical skills to create greater confusions that look great to people not steeped in enough math to know their maneuvers.” – RK

So, here was my email reply to “UnkownA” and their inverted, strange reasoning:

JP:  “I am afraid that your position is duplicitous, and therefore incorrect.

You said:  “net energy flow is always in the direction of hot to cold, in accordance with the 2nd law.”

This is what heat is.  This is the definition of heat.  Heat is what is needed to increase temperature as per the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.  And it doesn’t transfer from cold to hot.

Therefore, when you said that indeed: “Radiation energy is converted into ordinary heat when it is absorbed on any object or substance capable of it, regardless of the temperature of that substance”, you are in a contradiction.  You are contradicting the equation for radiant flow which you had just agreed with, and you are in contradiction to the definition of heat which you also provided.

Your scenario can help explain: “A photon, regardless of source and of the temperatures, hits an absorbant molecule. What happens?”

Firstly we can point out that you are simply assuming something about absorption and hence temperature increase requiring heat flow since this is the end point you seek, and this is also in contradiction to the things discussed above about defining heat flow, and so setting aside what you illogically intended: the answer is that heat flow and hence temperature increase depends upon the difference in source and receiver temperatures as per the definitions.  If a photon doesn’t have the energy (i.e. frequency, since a photon’s energy is directly proportional to its frequency) required to cause an already-vibrating molecule to vibrate faster, i.e. it doesn’t have a greater frequency, then it cannot cause the faster-vibrating molecule to vibrate faster.  You may know that temperature is proportional with the population of frequency components in the ensemble.  Higher temperature means that both higher frequency energies are present and that there is greater population of energy across all frequencies.  This is of course why heat only flows from hot to cold – because the cooler source cannot provide any additional energy frequencies that the warmer object doesn’t already have populated.

Heat transfers down a metal rod from the warm end to cool end, and the cooler molecules down the rod, down the gradient of heat flow and temperature, although they may be bumping against the molecules upward in the gradient, do not make the upward gradient of the rod become warmer.  Although the molecules upward of the gradient “absorb” collisions with the cooler molecules down the gradient, the exchange is that the cooler molecules become warmer with heat flowing from hot to cool as the energy frequencies become populated down the gradient.  The process here is electromagnetism, just up close.  The same electromagnetism occurs at a distance and obeys the same limitations.

The material and radiant heat flow equations define that energy from the cooler, lower-frequency-population sources has no effect on the temperature of the warmer source.  The warmer source raises the temperature of the cooler.”

Well that’s where things stand now, and I thought the true rationalists around here would like to see how things actually get on “on the inside”.

They don’t get on too well that is because this argument and these email chains have been done hundreds of times over now between our groups, and you can quite clearly see that the Slayer’s are the only ones around actually sticking to and utilizing the real definitions and hence the real physics of things.  The other sides reply by re-stating their position, we reply by pointing out the errors and self-contradictions and contradictions to definitions.  And again and again and again around it goes.

Eventually, everyone just hates the Slayers…hohoho.

Update 1:


“I think you will find that what Vincent said was basically correct.

The net heat flow by radiation is from hotter to cooler, but the actual heat flow from each source is sT^4 and this heat is received by the other body whatever its temperature.

Similarly, a body at room temperature is in equilibrium, receiving as much heat as it radiates.”

Isn’t that such a strange reply given what was already discussed?  Here is my reply:

JP: For the reasons already discussed based on the definition of heat flow, etc., what Vincent said was not correct.

Heat is only the net portion of the energy difference.  You are making the same mistake as Vincent by assuming that all energy is heat.

D: “the actual heat flow from each source is sT^4”

That’s incorrect.  We reviewed the equation for heat and heat is the difference of that term with another.  That term by itself is energy, and heat is the difference in energies between two sources.

From Schroeder in “Thermal Physics”: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat.  Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

D:  “Similarly, a body at room temperature is in equilibrium, receiving as much heat as it radiates.”

This is incorrect.  Equilibrium is when heat flow is zero, when the difference in energy terms of the heat equation is zero because the terms are equal.  The bodies are receiving equal amounts of energy, and heat is zero.  For the radiant case you would have heat Q = s* (T1^4 – T2^4).  Equilibrium is when Q = 0.  That’s how thermal equilibrium is defined.  If heat is zero in thermal equilibrium then there are no bodies receiving any heat at all.  This is why it is so important to distinguish between energy, heat, and temperature.

You will not find sT^4 defined as heat in any thermal physics textbook.  It is energy, only.  And it is only the difference of two terms of these from two sources which is heat.

It’s just the strangest thing.  You go over the definitions and show how their reasoning was incorrect…and then they simply repeat themselves over again.  It’s so funny and ridiculous! lol



“You are purely arguing about semantics.

OK Everyone knows that radiant heat is actually electromagnetic energy.

Heat is just another form of energy.

So, what I was saying was that an object at room temperature receiving as much radiant energy as it loses is in equilibrium and therefore there is no heat flow.”

My reply:


“I looked up the definition of semantics.

Semantics: noun, (used with a singular verb)

  1. Linguistics. The study of meaning. The study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
  2. Also called significs. The branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
  3. The meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.:

We’re discussing nature and the way its physics works, and it seems to me that nature doesn’t behave half one way plus another, but quite precisely according to physics and hence mathematics.  There is nothing more precise than the behaviour of nature and mathematics and therefore there is nothing more important than their semantics.  So, “purely arguing about semantics” is precisely what we’re supposed to do with physics, because this is what gives us understanding of anything about it in the first place.

D: “So, what I was saying was that an object at room temperature receiving as much radiant energy as it loses is in equilibrium and therefore there is no heat flow.”

And that is a precisely correct statement!  And it makes a difference, because if we forget the semantics like the alarmists do and incorrectly think that all radiant energy is heat, then one can mistakenly conclude that radiation from a cool source will cause a warmer object to become warmer still, just as Vincent did and as the alarmists do in their radiative greenhouse effect at the basis of their alarmism.  This is the fundamental distinction which debunks the entire enterprise of climate alarmism, and so the semantics here are crucial, as goes the physics and mathematics.”



Does a gas warm when it absorbs photons?

I agree that electron orbits are the initial responders and that dropping back a level results in a photon. But that is not the whole story. If an atom in a molecule receives a photon and the electron is excited, does that change the vibration mode of the molecule? And if the molecule is involved in a collision before the electron slips back to its original orbit (as it will be in the vast majority of cases), will the energy be transferred as momentum to the colliding molecule?

It seems that is the case: gases warm when irradiated. And gas mixtures such as the atmosphere also warm. I have attached the very good (but not error free) paper by John Nicol.

Energy is Transmitted in Both Directions From Two Black Bodies of Different Temperatures

Your equation Q = sigma*(T2^4 – T1^4) says it most elegantly.

The net energy transfer, Q, is the difference of the energy transmitted from hot to cold (sigma T2^4) and the energy transmitted from cold to hot(sigma T1^4).

And note well, in this case the hotter body loses less energy (remains hotter) than if it were radiating to a void. Due to the energy it is receiving from the colder body.

My reply:


Indeed a gas can be warmed by thermal radiation absorbed from a warmer source, and the presence of an atmosphere can keep the ground surface warmer.  Neither of these are the radiative greenhouse effect though.

In the Nicol paper at equation 26 he writes an equation for demonstrating a radiative greenhouse effect (RGHE).  The equation is wrong and nonsensical.  This can be proven by removing “Io” from the equation 26:

esT^4 = Io + pesT^4

If we remove the solar radiation “Io” (night-time) then we have:

esT^4 = pesT^4

where p has already been defined in the paper as < 1.  The premise of the equation is that the surface temperature is defined by the solar input plus some “backradiation” from the atmosphere which is a fraction of the surface flux.  The equation has a contradiction if we simply remove the solar input as if it were night-time, and so something is wrong with it.

Firstly, to calculate equilibrium temperatures we set heat flow equal to zero.  Heat flow is defined as the net flow of energy between two objects.  In radiative terms you have Q = F1 – F2 where F are the radiative fluxes from the two objects.  What Nicol does, and what the radiative greenhouse effect does, is add in a third term to this equation, where the third term is actually a fraction of the cooler term.

We would normally have Q = esT^4 – Io in order to calculate the surface temperature T given an external input Io.  Set Q = 0 for equilibrium and then calculate T.  Two different objects and their fluxes.  What Nicol does and the RGHE does is add back in a fraction of the surface’s own energy, to get Q = esT^4 – (Io + pesT^4).  Then when you set Q = 0 you get Nicol’s equation 26, although Nicol didn’t demonstrate where it actually came from.  If you just state it in the way that Nicol and the RGHE does, then you might think it makes sense, but it is important to know where such an equation actually originates, i.e. from the heat flow equation.

Heat is defined as the net energy flow between two objects.  The pesT^4 term is a third distinct object, the atmosphere, being added in directly.  That’s not consistent with the definition of heat flow, its equation, and the Laws of Thermodynamics where energy from the atmosphere could only transfer as heat to the surface and warm the surface if the atmosphere were warmer than the surface.  With Nicol’s and the RGHE formulation, energy from the atmosphere is being added directly to the surface as heat irrespective of the temperature relationship between the surface and atmosphere, where it is that two-party relationship which determines if energy from the atmosphere can act as heat for the surface at all.  To know if the atmosphere can send heat to the surface to increase its temperature we must consider that relationship in and of itself according to the definition of heat flow between two bodies.  Using the established formulations we then have:

Q = esT^4 – pesT^4

for the heat flow between the surface and atmosphere.  Given that p < 1, and that the atmosphere is cooler than the surface typically, the equation then means that heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere and therefore the atmosphere does not increase the temperature of the surface by radiative heat flow.  Hence, the RGHE is incorrect, as is of course Nicol’s formulation of it.

I suggest reading Nikolov and Zeller ( for a correct description of how the presence of an atmosphere affects the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere depending on the total atmospheric mass and planetary gravity.  They still use the term “greenhouse effect”, which I disagree with since a real greenhouse functions by a distinct mechanism not related to radiation or gravity, etc., but nevertheless the radiative greenhouse effect upon which climate alarmism is based is refuted by that paper as well, as it has been here.

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

201 Responses to The Problem with Climate Alarm Skeptics

  1. songhees says:

    Latest books and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    My latest documentary and video of my presentation.

    My website is
    The Trans-mountain Pipeline will add 3/10,000 of 1% CO2 to the atmosphere.
    Besides, CO2 is not a pollutant.
    “Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.

  2. I’ve been buying your books. They’re great reading!

  3. gallopingcamel says:

    The debate is indeed over and the Alarmists lost. That is why Verity Jones, Jeff Id, Lucia, Pointman, Bishop Hill and many others have lost interest in “Global Warming”. There is no point in beating a dead horse called “Global Warming”.

    Alarmists have also given up on “Global Warming” and they now blame the little people (you and me) for causing “Climate Change”. IMHO, “Climate Change” is going to happen with or without our puny industrial “Civilization”.

  4. Philip Mulholland says:

    You absolutely need to write this part of your refutation in bold:-

    Higher temperature means that both higher frequency energies are present and that there is greater population of energy across all frequencies. This is of course why heat only flows from hot to cold – because the cooler source cannot provide any additional energy frequencies that the warmer object doesn’t already have populated.

    This issue that low radiative frequencies (cold light) cannot excite warm bodies that emit warm light is critical to defeating the lie of “Back Radiation” heating the ground, the rotten worm at the heart of the snake’s tempting apple.

  5. Updated the OP with another reply exchange. Under the bold heading “Update1“.

  6. Indeed Philip!

    Camel too!

  7. Gary Ashe says:

    Thanks joe.
    This is what i would like to watch you take part in, take it to them, just to read i mean.
    Mr Ball the volume of your video needs work, I could not make out a word you were saying.

  8. … because the cooler source cannot provide any additional energy frequencies that the warmer object doesn’t already have populated.

    … and also [tell me if I am wrong] because the cooler source cannot lower the energy frequencies of the warmer object. You’ve got to clearly defeat that “slowing cooling” approach in this manner of detail too — that’s what I’m trying to do.

    The “cooler frequencies” can only “join” the “warmer frequencies”, yes? Isn’t that resonating?

    Again, do I have this straight, or am I screwing up?

  9. As for the volume and clarity of the voice in the video, … terrible.

    I’m not a technical expert in this area, but there has to be a set up where you are connected through some sort of dedicated microphone feeding into the video, in order to get clear, audible, understandable vocal projection.

    All that wisdom needs perfect sound clarity. Otherwise, its just going through the motions without getting the actual results.

    Hear the presentation the way the audience hears it. It’s a work in progress. It’s only a rough draft at this point.

    Among my other ventures, I was (many moons ago) a stage performer involved in getting all this stuff right, and I know it can be a pain, but it’s what it takes to get the message across that you want. Think as an audience. See as an audience. Hear as an audience. View your finished production as an audience, and honestly assess it as a self critic.

  10. Carl says:

    Thermodynamics is a scientific discipline that defines the thermal relationship between a “system” and its “surroundings”. What the “system” is defines what the “surroundings” are and the “system” can be anything that one chooses:

    System #1 = The entire Earth/atmosphere ensemble
    Surroundings #1 = everything in space including the Sun

    System #2 = the surface of the Earth, i.e., the ground and sea surface
    Surroundings #2 = the atmosphere and space

    System #3 = a one-meter-thick layer of air about 1.5 meters off of the ground
    Surroundings #3 = everything below and everything above that one-meter-thick layer of air

    System #4 = the troposphere
    Surroundings #4 = everything below and everything above the troposphere

    System #5 = a planet with a blackbody surface and no atmosphere
    Surroundings #5 = everything in space including the Sun

    Once defined though one cannot change the system halfway through a hypothesis and suggest that the relationship that one system has to its surroundings defines the relationship that a different system to its surroundings as the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis does.

    For example, whenever the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis speaks of the “average global temperature” it is talking about system #3 because that is where the thermometers are positioned whose readings are being averaged to yield the “average global temperature.” It then switches to system #1 and talks about what the “average global temperature”, the temperature of system #3, should be based on the average intensity of the IR radiation being emitted out into space by system #1, the entire Earth/atmosphere ensemble.

    Alternatively “greenhouse effect” hypothesis might compare and equate system #2 and system #5 using system #1 and system #3 as an intermediaries. System #5, a planet with a blackbody surface and no atmosphere, with an average surface temperature of -18 °C will emit ~240 W/m^2 of IR radiation into space. Therefore, since system #1, the entire Earth/atmosphere ensemble, emits ~240 W/m^2 of IR radiation into space then system #2 should have an average temperature of -18 °C. Since the average temperature of system #3 is 33 °C higher than the average temperature of system #5 then atmospheric “greenhouse gases” must be “slowing the cooling” of system #2.

    Oh, and one last thing. 97% of the world’s scientists affirm and the IPCC has “high confidence” that the “greenhouse effect” described above is true, therefore you are not allowed to challenge it or you will be renounced by the “scientific community” as a “science denier” and/or “climate denier.”


  11. Carl,

    I hate to say it, but that seems all messed up, if I have been understanding things correctly.

    You go to great pains to separate out these various systems, only to conflate them and their metrics to undermine the very separation that you seem to have successfully pointed out.

    As I understand it, the system that is the Earth atmospheric near-surface AIR and near-surface water is ENCASED within the system that is the ENTIRE Earth/Atmosphere. You, therefore, are NOT correct to extract the metric from the system encased within the other system and compare the two. Planetary radiant temperature is a consequence of the atmosphere, NOT a dictator of what the atmospheric temperature SHOULD be.

    You write:

    Therefore, since system #1, the entire Earth/atmosphere ensemble, emits ~240 W/m^2 of IR radiation into space then system #2 should have an average temperature of -18 °C.

    No, system #1, which CONTAINS the Earth/atmosphere ensemble DOES have a planetary emission temperature of -18C. This tells us nothing about what the near surface air/ocean temperature of ONLY this layer of the ensemble SHOULD be. It tells us what the emission temperature IS, … AS A PARTIAL RESULT OF the atmosphere. Again, you can’t just extract that layer of the ensemble to compare it to the WHOLE ensemble and think that you are comparing comparable entities — you are comparing PART of an entity to the WHOLE that contains that part.

    In other words, what I am understanding to be the case is that the Earth/atmosphere ensemble is the very thing radiating what that measurement is (-18C). Why oh why, then, SHOULD the air/water at the surface temperature have anything to do with the seen-from-space temperature that encases that very temperature and, in effect, reduces it, as a result of the perspective from which the WHOLE planet is being ascertained?

    In effect, you are trying to compare a whole planet to its surface, like trying to compare the skin of an apple to the whole apple. Skin temperature is NOT core temperature — they are not subject to comparison.

    I’m seeing some other weirdness too, in your delineation of systems to contrive your point about “slowing the cooling”.

    Help me out here, JP, … am I anywhere near the ballpark, or have I driven to the wrong stadium altogether?

  12. Carl says:

    I was attempting to illustrate how illogical the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is.

    The two paragraphs on which you comment describes how the actual “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is constructed. It pulls data from different thermodynamic systems, some of which are contained within other larger systems, some of which are purely imaginary, and constructs out of that unrelated data a thesis that has no connection to reality.

    If I wasn’t clear, I find the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis to be false for all of the reasons that you point out.


  13. Whew, I’m glad you cleared that up!

    You seemed to be talking so much from the perspective of the illogical claim that I thought that YOU were making it. I missed that set up somehow that would have led me to see your intent — blind, I guess. (^_^)

    So, I don’t need to rage on the 97%-consensus fallacy … AGAIN, .. as if it weren’t buried deep enough in debunk sod already.

  14. Rosco says:

    Sceptics sit at their computer looking out their windows admiring the view and recite ad nauseum that EVERY photon emitted from somewhere regardless of the temperature of the emitter simply must be absorbed and this absorption simply MUST increase the temperature of the absorbing medium.

    All the while they simply ignore the absolute proof that their ridiculous mantra is totally wrong whilst they admire the view made possible by the electromagnetic radiation reflected from the grass, trees birds or whatever resides in the outside world and simply passes straight through a solid crystal lattice routinely called glass at usually over 95% transmission for wavelengths below 2 micron.

    Wavelengths above 4 micron are absorbed at close to 100% yet these “experts” also routinely claim spectral considerations are irrelevant – according to them only the gross power is relevant and you can add up the values and calculate temperatures regardless of the temperatures of the emitting objects.

    The mere fact that there are countless examples where their stupid 1st law analysis breaks down totally doesn’t seem the phase them is proof positive of how people feel smug and superior relating something they read which sounds “sciency”.

    Light passing through glass whilst IR doesn’t is proof positive their thinking is muddled – most of the highly energetic photons simply pass through a solid with minimal absorption – the very ones you would expect to cause the greatest heating given their higher electron volt capacities.

    How do they fail to see that the same radiation flux that induces land surface temperatures over 70°C never induces more than about 36° C in the ocean surface – if indeed the Sun is the only source of heat for the oceans. Water just simply evaporates away without increase in temperature.

    Or how do they account for the fact that during phase change substances do not increase in temperature no matter how much energy you “throw” at them until the process is complete.

    All of these primary school facts disprove the ridiculous assertions – never mind the line spectra of gases which only absorb very few wavelengths despite being subjected to a continuous spectrum.

    Clearly only photons with the “right” energy “profile” are absorbed depending on the nature of the absorbing medium.

    Einstein seemed to disagree with these modern “experts” when he postulated the photo-electric effect as described in Young and Freedman University Physics on page 1289 of the version I have –

    “In Einstein’s picture, an individual photon arriving at the surface in Fig. 38.1a or 38.2 is absorbed by a single electron. This energy transfer is an all-or-nothing process, in contrast to the continuous transfer of energy in the wave theory of light; the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all.”

    Perhaps these peoples foolish interpretations lead Einstein to write –

    “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. (Albert Einstein, 1954)”.

    For the record I claim little knowledge – I cannot even understand how some “photons” can pass straight through solids whilst others can’t but clearly the people who spruik the nonsense outlined above are wrong.

  15. Hey, I have an idea: Let’s look at all the posts made at Climate Of Sophistry to determine what percentage of the posters are named “Robert”. In the analysis to determine this, first eliminate all posters who do not use a real name. … Just pretend as if they don’t even exist. Second, eliminate all names that are shortened or mutated versions of “Robert” (e.g, “Bob”, “Rob”, “Bobbie”, “Robbie”, “Roberto”, etc.). Third, base your percentage ONLY on the exact name you are looking for.

    Wow, 100% of the readers posting at <Climate Of Sophistry are named “Robert”.

    Who knew?

  16. Rosco says:

    Does anyone remember this –

    “Michael Hammer has suggested this as a line of reasoning that may help people discuss this. If you don’t agree with the end conclusion (that greenhouse gases can’t warm earth because they are not hotter than Earth), point out exactly which step in the sequence is the one you think is wrong and explain it so we can understand why.

    1) Do you agree that if you stand surrounded by cold objects (say a ring of huge ice blocks) you feel cold?

    2) Do you agree that the colder the object you are surrounded by the colder you feel? eg: if they were blocks of frozen CO2 (dry ice) instead of water ice would you feel colder?

    3) OK now if you have been standing surrounded by extremely cold objects and then move so that you are now surrounded by merely cool objects does the move make you feel less cold than you were before?

    4) In the absence of green house gases the earth is surrounded by an extremely cold object – outer space at 4K (-269C). Green house gases make the atmosphere opaque at some wavelengths. With these in place the earths surface is in effect surrounded by a merely cool atmosphere instead of the truly frigid outer space. Because the surface is now surrounded by a less cold object than it was before it is less cold.

    5) Since warm and cold are opposites, less cold is the equivalent of warmer. Surrounding earth’s surface with an opaque cool atmosphere make it warmer than it would be if exposed directly to the ultra frigid outer space.”

    And people who make such asinine arguments as this think they are clever and sceptics ?

    Love the “earth is surrounded by an extremely cold object – outer space at 4K (-269C)” and “Surrounding earth’s surface with an opaque cool atmosphere make it warmer than it would be if exposed directly to the ultra frigid outer space.”

    I guess he forgets that this actually does not actually exist anywhere within the “sphere” with an average radius of 256 million kilometres with the Sun at its centre – 7.03 x 10^25 cubic kilometres where the minimum radiation flux is 586 W/m2 equivalent to a blackbody temperature of ~46° C.

    Just because the solar radiation is directional doesn’t mean it is not continually present and the volume “shaded” by the planets – where the “night sky” radiant flux is likely equal to the radiation emitted by the planet anyway – is tiny. Diffraction around planets ensures there is absolutely nowhere in the inner solar system where the BS 4K “ultra frigid” environment actually exists !

  17. Another update at Update2.

  18. Hah yah good point Rosco. These people are such consummate liars.

    “earth is surrounded by an extremely cold object – outer space at 4K (-269C)”

    First of all space doesn’t have a temperature. Secondly, the space at 1au from the sun is filled with radiation at 1370 W/m^2, or +121C! Why is the Earth so much colder than +121C!? Jerks…

  19. I thought that space in the vicinity of the sun is BOTH hot and cold, depending on whether you are in shadow or in direct sunlight.

    Yeah, so why, as JP posits, on the sunny side of Earth are we much colder than 250F, and, on the dark side of Earth, much warmer than -338F (notice that’s MINUS)?

  20. AfroPhysics says:

    Space is cold until you put matter there, then it can be thermalized by radiation.

    I’ve come to realize that AGW proponents are flat-earthers (thanks JP), gravity deniers, and sun deniers. I think they believe we live under a glass dome, because only under this scenario would co2 have a substantial effect.

  21. Lol…indeed, they definitely are those things!

  22. Let’s just make up some politically correct, academic-sounding, condemning labels:

    spherophobes, graviphobes and solarphobes.

  23. Rosco says:

    Someone should have pointed out Michael Hammer’s “expert” line of reasoning to those fools who built Igloos under the impression they might provide some protection – warmth ? – against an extreme cold environment.

    Obviously any warmth they felt due to suppression of convective cooling in an Arctic blizzard was totally ILLUSORY ! People like the ones who support the reasoning outlined by Mike would have you believe they were actually being warmed by the down welling long wave back radiation of ~315 W/m2 from the ice blocks –

    Oh wait, bugger it, didn’t they say “Do you agree that if you stand surrounded by cold objects (say a ring of huge ice blocks) you feel cold ?”

    Dammit there goes that theory !

  24. Someone needs to write a paper, … What Does Earth’s Atmosphere Actually Do ?

    I don’t have my act together — [need a few more years], and so I can’t do it.

  25. Just for fun, I typed that title into a Google search — “what does earth’s atmosphere actually do” —

    … appalling what came up at the top of the page returned for this search — a statement from NASA [no real surprise there] from one of their websites for children, located here:

    … and here is NASA’s answer to the question [are you ready for this ?]:

    Gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide do what the roof of a greenhouse does. During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air.

    Seriously ?!

  26. 4TimesAYear says:

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

  27. AfroPhysics says:

    I’ve been trying to come up with analogies to describe the difference between climate realists and AGW cranks.

    Realist: You can cook a burger faster by pressing it down on the grill with a spatula.

    Crank: You can’t cook a burger at all without spices. Spices absorb the flame and pass the heat to the burger. The more spices the faster it cooks. The spatula won’t work until spices are present.

    No vegans were harmed during creative process.
    Pass it on if you like.

  28. Spatula ! , … ha !, … there’s enough heat trapped in the pan – WITHOUT turning on the burner at all – to cook that burger. In fact, the burger would cook by just breathing your exhaled CO2 on it, since a cool atmosphere is capable of heating the Earth.

    Here’s how it works: Your breathed CO2 “slows the cooling” of the burger, thus trapping enough heat to sear it nicely on both sides. Your magical breath is like greenhouse glass — forget that it’s a GAS and NOT GLASS — it’s the idea that counts, since it enables you to secure many a grant to research burger cooking by breathing. It’s basic science, man ! or in this context, I should adopt the convention of using “mann” in place of “man”.

    If you disagree with me, then clearly you misunderstand these basics, and this is always the fail-safe argument that I shall apply to reduce your meticulously crafted, lengthy mathematical counter arguments to insignificant mush.

    You’re dealing with a master sophist here, and so don’t even try to think that you can win an argument against me, because even if you CAN win it, I CAN’T know that you win it, because that’s my key to winning — denial. It works like a charm every time.

  29. Allen Eltor says:

    When energy enters an object it is entangled and resonates on the electrons it appends itself to at the speed of light.

    When energy leaves matter and is driven away through space what is the mechanic – what is the mechaniSM that causes the light to leave at C in vacuum?

    It’s the deflective – the self-repulsion nature of electromagnetic energy.

    It is this propensity to spread out and equalize that gives rise to the concept of, Entropy, perhaps in this case with a capital letter referring to the Law that says – given avenues, like forces, repulse each other until they are as distant from each other statistically, as the environment allows.

    In matter this leakage from electron to electron is identical to – it’s not like it – it’s WHAT makes this effect occur in wires – it’s identical to what happens when you align a buncha matter in a row: in a very regular way, crystalized matter, like copper wire – and you bunch them (yeah I know, I re-used the word bunch) together, you wrap them all tightly together and then, down in the center of em, you pulse a signal down the line.

    The signal erupts onto the static energy field held resonant by the wire as a nominal average temperature, as a disruption, an increase or decrease in apparent electromagnetic pressure: this pressure difference, propagates down the line, and at the speed of light – but you don’t see it traveling at the speed of light, you see it as about two thirds of the speed of light in copper because
    watch carefully kids,
    the hand-offs of energy from electron to electron as one encounters a field of energy higher than the energy it’s entangled more or less energy creates hand-off from electron, to electron – AT the SPEED of LIGHT because ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY PROPAGATES ITSELF at THE SPEED of LIGHT when it DOES change.

    Ok when that pulse goes down that line, the copper lines very, very nearby – and, those farther off- all incur a mild deflection of their OWN internal electromagnetic energy containment – we’re trying to stay in everyday reader country here, so…

    This mutual interaction is created in THOSE wires – at what speed, guys? The speed of light. You can slow roll over there and press the button of energy change in life but no matter how slow you press yon button when you DO alter electromagnetic energy, at what speed, will you disrupt it with your own electromagnetic energy field? At what speed shall any disruption or creation of a field you cause – what speed shall it occur? At C. The speed of light guys so listen to me.

    When light strikes an object what is the main arbiter of how much light gets entangled, and how much bounces off? It’s the amount of electromagnetic energy contained already in that mass, in that material mass, the photonic energy strikes a facet of, that’s exposed to open space.

    When it slams into that exposed facet, at WHAT speed shall whatever light IS entangled by captured?
    At C, the speed of light.


    When the photon strikes the exposed facet, what if the electrons locally are already charged up with, have already entangled, a concentration of energy equal to, or greater than the incoming photon?

    Is it going to press the photons that were leaking out, back into the material?

    Well the incoming field, DOES inhibit emission of energy that was leaking out, which is why – pay close, and careful attention here because if either one of us is too drunk, I could f*** this up and say it wrong – this is WHY
    the temperature of a resistor or iron bar you’re delivering a watt of energy into,

    glows that energy off at ONE temperature in a vacuum in Antarctica,
    glows that energy off at ANOTHER temp in a vacuum in Phoenix.

    That 1 Watt you put into the iron bar,
    glows of at -50 in Antarctica but that watt glows off
    glows off at +50 in Phoenix, as that Watt glows off.

    If I’m going on and on, and just never will s.t.f.U and several of you just die: from boredom, right there at the console, on the train, or the email notification you open that Allen Eltor has gotten off on yet another tear –

    you’re all gonna just glow on down, down, until your dead body’s at room temp.

    Some dude in Minnesota might get down to 30F when the wood stove goes out.

    A guy in Dubai might actually have HIS body temperature go UP if I kill HIM from boredom,

    because the energy field around you,
    sets the temperature at which you glow.
    When your electromagnetic operations are going, a kid passing a magnet by a wire, a semiconductor circuit alternately passing a higher vs lower intensity electromagetic disruption through a circuit, making it sorta rebound back and forth, low and high, one way then the other way, like a pendulum going back and forth – this all happens because electromagnetic energy
    watch what I say
    will disrupt and deflect other electromagnetic energy,
    if one energy pool is bound, resonant, on matter.
    Which is why a steel rod or slug,
    shoots back and forth in a relay when you pass electromagnetic energy forces down a coil of wire,
    that’s wrapped around and around,
    (again forgive the vocabulary redundancy here we’re talking at the speed of just an everyday guy)
    that steel slug.

    There’s electromagnetic energy, bound to that steel slug, captured as light or whatever and entangled with those electrons, which are in turn, bound to the nuclei of their respective atoms.

    When the electromagnetic energy bound in the steel slug,
    has the enormous electromagnetic field erupt all around it in a circle, a cylinder, a sorta toroidal configuration, this donut configuration that lays the moving magnetic field down wire, alongside itself over and over – when this magnetic or electromagnetic field force erupts, as a button’s pressed and a relay fires, fires energy down the coil of wire, – the steel slug, is drawn, is PULLED – like a WAGON is PULLED kids – by the ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY on the ELECTRONS in the STEEL
    responding to the electromagnetic energy field erupting around the wire.

    This creation of a magnet – an electro-magnet – tows the physical iron why? Because copper likes iron, or wtF ever? No,
    because electromagnetic energy
    bound to matter
    has enormous deflection power
    and it’s so great,
    that you can cause two conflicting fields to interact,
    and send one end of that interaction hauling ass to or from Cleveland, your rail gun on a ship to a target miles away, or just make the steel rod in a bathroom door retract into a coil of wire, at a cheesy gas station bathroom outside some ‘burg in Nevada.
    Someone’s gonna probably reply right as I start the next part of what I’m gonna try to say and I’m gonna try to zone in and just kinda complete my route through basics of matter and energy.

    I’m not trying to be some kinda primp who refuses to speak, it’s just that I’m trying to keep my sh** straight lest-

    you know

    about half you guys

    die from boredom.

  30. Allen Eltor says:

    Ok now.
    We’ve established that the light in an object – it’s electromagnetic energy, is it not? Till it emits as photonic energy, it’s electromagnetic energy, and when it’s pinging through free space, it’s photonic in nature generally – not always, but this is about our sun, a 5500 degree or whatever fire, and this is classical light mechanics so that’s where we’re gonna stay, alright? –
    When your photon is inside matter trapped as just generic energy, if you can contrive to arrange for electromagnetic energy to be in a copper coil that’s tied to a table and an iron rod, which one moves?
    The lightest one or – you know what I mean, the one which is appended – fixed – to the largest mass, causes the other, to move.
    IF we take a coil of wire and epoxy the iron rod to the table, and then energize the coil of wire, the coil of wire, will move, by flexing your feedlines, and it’ll just suck right up onto that iron rod you have there.
    Ok? So we’ve established, VERY fucking clearly kids, that ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY ENTANGLED WITH, RESONATING ON, the ELECTRONS of MATTER,
    Now watch carefully regarding ”Yeh but, yew ain’t nevur seen thim high powurd fellurs what’s got yew tewb channuls talk abowt the magical backerdisms, wairin uh white coat and bow tie, an EVURTHANG, YaW!”
    We can also show the high degree of control matter-bound energy has on free radiant energy, by the fact that when you have a pane of glass,
    and a gallon of silver paint,
    light arriving on the lid of the open paint, there in that circle of wet silver paint – it’s deflected away from that silver
    from that silver paint
    in a dis-ordered way. You can’t exactly see yourself in that wet gallon of silver paint.
    But as SOON as you ALIGN the FACETS of those SILVER molecules by SPRAYING IT onto the SURFACE of that PANE of GLASS,
    because of the DEFLECTING POWER – the REJECTING POWER of – what?
    The light CAN’T be ENTERING the SILVER PAINT
    because if it DID it * * * * * * MUST EMIT AS THE 3% TRAPPED LIGHT THAT LEAVES as AVERAGED INFRARED being emitted around an average temperature of the glass/silver-paint complex: those two forms of matter together do not REFLECT AWAY ALL the light,
    they INTAKE SOME of it
    and they DEFLECT the REST AWAY.
    Any f****g CLOWN who believes that light can push its way INTO matter is as stupid as he sounds.
    Any body who doesn’t realize that light fields OUTSIDE matter can STOP energy from leaking OUT – are also, uhm. . . wrong.
    I’m not trying to be mean. When I’m trying to be mean I tend to rely on the term ‘you ignoratti, t.h.e.r.m.-=(o)=-b.i.l.l.y. f*&ng HiCKS’ a lot, because it’s a very, very accurate technical description of optical hicks,
    TV Weathermen,
    professional journalists without jobs who ‘blog climate’ or who HAVE jobs and DRAW BRAND RECOGNITION, PROFITEERING from the ALARMISM like that HICK Joanne Nova,
    so I’m here SOLELY as a friendly. I promise I am, because you notice how I act friendly? Yeah that’s a good indication I’m here as a friendly because I do indeed know the difference my friends, and I have unleashed heck, and high water feelings of panic in a many a thermobilly hick, and I will be b*** slapping many,
    MANY more before it’s over because
    who can’t figure out it’s impossible to mix light blocking insulation into a bath chilling a rock,
    so less light warms that rock,
    and have that admixture cause instruments on the rock to detect and depict
    more light warming it
    each time the insulation makes
    less light warm it – they deserve what they get and I’m charging all you who are very young now, who are reading my words, you bury the names of Anthony Watts, JoAnne Nova, Willis Eschenbach, in S.H.A.M.E for their insulting civilization by swearing THEY THOUGHT THAT’S POSSIBLE –
    Those people are FAKE SKEPTICS who claim INSULATION can be MIXED INTO A BATH
    thus making LESS LIGHT REACH the LIGHT WARMED ROCK in that BATH
    and make
    INSTRUMENTS mounted on the ROCK d.e.t.e.c.t. and d.e.p.i.c.t. MORE light
    the admixture of insulation allows to ever REACH the rock, to WARM it.
    This is S.H.A.M.E.L.E.S.S. VIOLATION of C.O.N.S.E.R.V.A.T.I.O.N. of E.N.E.R.G.Y.
    There is MUCH MORE that is SHAMELESS ANTI-SCIENCE about it.
    The VERY CLAIM that the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET can BE CORRECTLY, PROPERLY ATTAINED through usage of SOLELY STEFAN-BOLTZMANN portion of the mathematics for resolving temperature of matter, that is INCOMPRESSIBLE –
    is SHAMELESS ANTI-SCIENCE by ANYONE who has e.v.e.r. actually just – DISCUSSED this- not gone through the college to process some algebraic and other math functions – IT’S ANTI-SCIENCE of SHAMELESS MisATTiBUTiON of PRINCIPLE:
    ONE law for INCOMPRESSIBLE or static-density MATERIAL
    ONE law for COMPRESSIBLE or intrinsically, highly-variable density materials.
    U.S.I.N.G. *gas law* to RESOLVE *gas temperatures*
    BONDS and UNIFIES the FOUR LAWS PRECEEDING IT – the four major laws preceeding it,
    and PART of this LAW is RESOLUTION of the D.E.N.S.I.T.Y. of the gas at hand: and this is named,
    the –
    – hey – wait for it – big word time, so strap the f*** in and sit facing forward in the cockpit with your hands arms, and extremities in the ‘relaxed upright’ position: it’s called, the
    and when you’re flipping your values around,
    you’re using the formula, ”PV = nRT”
    and you solve, whichever part of your energy handling you’re concerned with –
    by utilizing the fact that PRESSURE and VOLUME you see, have a RELATIONSHIP
    DiReCTLY ReLaTeD – you can SEE that, RIGHT THERE in the EQUATION of the Law –
    to the [n] which is the amount you have, the [ n ]umber of Moles of substance, of gas –
    to the T which is – surprise, TEMPERATURE of the gas – and,
    also there is the function R – and R, refers, to the ***SECOND HALF OF THE LAW***
    which is the
    of GASES and also some common mixes, obviously atmospheric air’s there, this is an INTERNATIONAL LEGALLY BINDING PHYSICAL/PHYSICS STANDARD here we’re talking about.
    The CLAIM the TEMPERATURE of the ATMOSPHERE is actually 33 degrees SHORT of the REAL one is DIRECTLY BECAUSE of NOT using the RIGHT LAW of THERMODYNAMICS to ATTAIN our global atmospheric temperature.
    R in the Ideal Gas Law is the energy constant that a particular mix of gas, or pure gas gets during mathematical manipulations you’re using to establish the value of the unknown parts of your mathematical work.
    You can USE this on magic gassers because the KNOWN ERROR that OCCURS when you REFUSE to USE the PROPER LAW of THERMODYNAMICS to SOLVE for our global average atmospheric temperature,
    33 degrees.
    What did HANSEN CLAIM he could DO with SUPER FAST COMPUTERS?
    such that HIS ‘ ‘ calculated ‘ ‘ TEMPERATURES – that CHURCH’S ‘ ‘calculated’ ‘
    atmospheric temperature
    is 33 DEGREES SHORT of the PROPER ONE.
    We KNOW the proper global atmospheric temperature because the entire atmosphere’s climatic conditions are essentially etched in stone as the
    and uses PROPER gas law
    to arrive at PROPER global atmospheric average temperature.
    I guess I’ve gone on long enough.
    It’s ALL fraud.
    E.v.e.r.y. s.i.n.g.l.e. syllable of ”green house gases warm the planet” is FRAUD.
    Green house gases FIRST – STOP 20% of total available warming firelight from the sun
    from ever reaching the planet through the mechanism known as refraction: non thermalized re-emissions to space, just like that disorderly refraction of light from the surface of a pool of silver paint in the discussion about the mirror in my own post just above.
    They then, having been warmed a little but still being much cooler overall than the planet, continue their work CONDUCTION SCRUBBING the planet from it’s NON atmospheric glow temperature, whatever the temp of the planet would be without any shared radiation path from an atmosphere.
    Non atmosphere conditions are definitionally higher temperature for earth since the atmosphere is a colder mass, physically touching the surface of the planet, pulled to it by it’s own weight in the field of gravity. All you have to do to prove that to yourself is put a standard thermometer into a jar, poke a hole in the lid with a nail, and suck as much air out as you can. The temperature of the object will rise because you are reducing – vacuum completely removes – MODES of COOLING.
    When you reduce density of the cool air in your jar you reduce the CONDUCTION cooling potential.
    Green house gases chill through conduction just like the other gases – and in fact water is responsible wherever it is, for stopping surface temperatures rising to the level they rise, in areas where there’s little water in the atmosphere.
    Note the thread here by Joseph regarding ‘why aren’t they grounding flights in Birmingham?’ when FAA officials were grounding planes, in Phoenix.
    No water in the air made temperatures rise to such high rates that planes were being grounded due to the simple lack of atmospheric mass capable of creating vacuum differential on either sides of wings.
    The green house gases do not warm when they take 20% off surface temperatures right off the top.
    You can see their reduction of energy shown clearly in ANY chart of SUNLIGHT, top of ATMOSPHERE vs at nominal Sea Level.
    See any nodes on those charts of NON green house gases, reducing the surface energy density of the planet 20%? No you do not.
    Then you also – past the COLD green house gases CHILLING through CONDUCTION then serving as PARALLEL RADIATORS of energy Earth ‘s surface would otherwise be glowing off alone –
    Is an EVAPORATIVE DOUBLE PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERATION CYCLE a HEATER in REAL SCIENCE or is it a surface COOLING mechanism when you get cold, in the wind, at the lake as water evaporates off of you?
    of ”Green House Gases Warm The Planet” is FRAUD.
    If YOU disagree
    lure some thermobilly here to defend that and let me and him go a few rounds,
    and you watch who blinks.
    The atmosphere is not a ”JIGHNT HEEDUR IN the SKY”
    The Green House Gases portion of that cold bath conduction chilling the rocky planet,
    are specifically and almost SOLELY responsible for surface energy density reduction
    of 20% currently.
    The Green House Gases act as PARALLEL RADIATORS to SPACE: participating in CONDUCTION CHILLING the SURFACE a LOT.
    The Green House Gases are SOLELY responsible for the SUBSEQUENT conduction-acceleration physical mechanism called EVAPORATION and CONVECTION DRIVEN, PHASE-CHANGE REFRIGERATION of both the SURFACE and it’s immediate features,
    The green house gases are the CHILLER CORE
    of the atmosphere REFRIGERATING the planet SURFACE.
    Not MAYBE.
    ALL the time,
    and that won’t have changed when the last magic gas barking fraudulent hick, has his science destroying face SPIT INTO in CONTEMPT for his TRANSPARENTLY FRAUDULENT claims.

  31. Pingback: The Problem with Climate Alarm Skeptics | ajmarciniak

  32. Allen Eltor says:

    I have a post that went to moderation. It’s long, and it’s boring, but I think it’s relevant.

  33. Allen Eltor says:

    If the post isn’t recoverable the long point is that – energy approaching something, that’s not dictated by mathematics to have been absorbed – it’s not actually absorbed, or it would be counted as being thermalized: JUST LIKE WITH A MIRROR.

    When light approaches a mirror, mathematics says that 3% or whatever is absorbed. How do we KNOW it’s absorbed? It doesn’t come back away from the mirror, in the same frequencies, it comes back OUT of the mirror as INFRARED of a DIFFERENT FREQUENCY than it approached.

    So when people tell you, that two objects, both radiating, are absorbing each others’ energy, all of each others’ energy, and that the difference, the net difference, is just that which is greater – this can’t be correct because if it were, then M.I.R.R.O.R.S. wouldn’t WORK.

    When a mirror rejects 97% of the light approaching it – that energy isn’t absorbed, then given back off. It’s NEVER ABSORBED, it’s REFLECTED AWAY.

    If this weren’t the case then the mirror would be absorbing all that light and giving it off as infrared of the same average color temperature, as the object itself.

    A mirror isn’t so hot it’s giving off all the colors of the spectrum that it reflects: if you hold the mirror to the sun, and sunlight leaves the mirror, – that mirror hasn’t gotten so hot locally that it’s glowing off sunlight: it’s REJECTING sunlight.

    That sunlight is NOT – entering the silver of the metal, being trapped, then leaving again.

    That’s the point and this is the wrong thread for this to come from me, I just have tried to write about this, about 50 times here but I always tell myself, ‘forget about it, everybody’ll figure that all out.’

    Really the post I put up her ought to be in the ”emissivity debunks climate alarm” thread so that’s my bad. I do recognize I put it in the wrong place and I don’t know what made me go ahead and try to make my remarks about this phenomenon of light being absorbed or not, here on the ‘the problem with climate alarm skeptics’ thread.

    That’s my bad.

  34. Joe Postma says:

    Another update at Update3.

  35. Joe Postma says:

    It’s extremely important because the erroneous equation discussed is also how people like Roy Spencer write the RGHE in their attempt to prove it.

    In the heat flow equation, one can not just add in a third term from a secondary cooler source together with the hotter source as if ALL of the energy from the secondary cooler source can act as heat irrespective of its temperature difference with the primary cooler source. This is abuse of the heat flow equation and what it means and how to use it. They’re writing the equation in such a way that says that if you are in the Sunshine, adding some icecubes around you will make you hotter! Or, well, directly, if you are standing in the sunshine, the cooler atmosphere around you cooling you off is making you hotter. See…makes no sense!

  36. gallopingcamel says:

    The weakness of the Alarmists is that their theories can’t explain the past climate. Therefore why would one expect them to be able to predict the future climate?

  37. Allen Eltor – can you please cut your comments down. I don’t read half of them because they go on for pages. Please just make more concise points.

    You’re not moderated because when I’ve put in the 60 minutes of effort required to decipher a single one of your comments you are a skeptic…but it has to stop please.

  38. Hah yah exactly GC. Why explain the past climate when you can just change it! lol

  39. gallopingcamel says:

    Alarmists claim the the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) is 33 K. They base this on the difference between Earth’s average temperature and their theoretical temperature for a similar airless body…….288 K – 255 K = 33 K

    If they were better at analysis they would realize that an airless Earth would have a temperature much lower than 255 K, so the real GHE is ~ 90 K. Nobody can explain a GHE of 33 K in terms of [CO2], much less a GHE of 90 K.

    If your theory does not explain what is observed your theory is WRONG.

  40. I think it’s best summed up for the layman in the lyrics of Flanders and Swann:


    The first law of thermodynamics
    Heat is work and work is heat
    Heat is work and work is heat
    Very good

    The second law of thermodynamics
    Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
    Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
    Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter
    Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter
    You can try it if you like but you far better notter
    You can try it if you like but you far better notter
    ‘Cause the cold in the cooler will be hotter as a ruler
    ‘Cause the cold in the cooler will be hotter as a ruler
    Because the hotter body’s heat will pass through the cooler

    Heat is work and work is heat
    And work is heat and heat is work
    Heat will pass by conduction
    Heat will pass by conduction
    And heat will pass by convection
    And heat will pass by convection
    And heat will pass by radiation
    And heat will pass by radiationAnd that’s a physical law

    Heat is work and work’s a curse
    And all the heat in the universe
    It’s gonna cool down as it can’t increase
    Then there’ll be no more work
    And they’ll be perfect peace
    Yeah, that’s entropy, man!
    And all because of the second law of thermodynamics, which lays down

    That you can’t pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
    Try it if you like but you far better notter
    ‘Cause the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
    ‘Cause the hotter body’s heat will pass through the cooler

    Oh, you can’t pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
    You can try it if you like but you far better notter
    ‘Cause the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
    That’s the physical law

    Ooh, I’m hot!

    What? That’s because you’ve been working

    Oh, Beatles? Nothing!

    That’s the first and second law of thermodynamics

  41. Carl says:

    This may be viewed as clever poetry but the statement “heat is work and work is heat” is false. Yes, “heat” and “work” are both means of transferring energy into and out of a thermodynamic system, but they define different modes of transfer. “Work” is even referred to as an “adiabatic” mode of energy transfer. “Adiabatic” means without “heat”. “Work” is specifically not “heat”.

    The mathematical description of the First Law of TD make it a point to separate these two modes of energy transfer.
    ∆U = Q – W
    U = internal energy
    Q = heat
    W = work

  42. Allen E., I second JP’s plea to be a bit more concise [understatement].

    Wisdom is best administered in small, targeted doses, and I’m game for your “medicine”, but those last two posts were overdoses. (^_^)

    My earlier attempt at levity was trying to make the point that, just as with plain language, advanced math apparently can be used to create nonsensical equations.

    For example, to someone who does not speak English well, the sentence, “Blue sounds frolic intimately through the gnashing air”, might look like a correct structure, and it sounds kind of cool when you say it too. But it’s nonsense.

    Now imagine if you have some facility at manipulating higher math. I’m thinking a similar creative effort can be expended, and to somebody who does not “speak” higher math, it looks like a correct structure and it sounds kind of cool too.

    Highly trained minds can display highly trained idiocy, if they don’t REALLY know what their symbols and flow of symbols mean. This is why I could not continue in math, because I wanted to move slowwwwwwwwww, and peer deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, to know EXACTLY where each step came from, why, and how it could move to the next step.

    I’m seeing that I was wise, in one respect, to do this, because I did not become what appears to be one of those higher-level ignoramuses. On the other hand, I didn’t perfect my knowledge enough to spot the nonsense at this level.

  43. AfroPhysics says:

    T = PW/GD

    P = Pressure (kPa)
    W = Avg. Molar Weight of Air (g/mol)
    G = Gas Constant (J/mol K)
    D = Air Density (kg/m^3)

    (101.325*28.964)/(8.314*1.225) – 273.15 = 15

    So all the co2 barely makes any contribution to P, W and D.
    Maybe 0.01C?

    AGW junk science is so easy to debunk that most people think the debunking can’t be true, for obviously the “scientists” would fix their mistake, “obviously”.

    Eh, this crap is as dumb as communism. They need the “capitalist exploits workers” narrative to be true, even though most rational people realize that the customer covers the cost of workers and capitalists, otherwise the capitalists don’t hire workers.

    Errors in society do not get rooted out, they become paradigms to trick and control people.

    This whole debate

  44. From the John Nicol paper, referenced by Joseph P. in “Update 3” [Red marks mine]:

    Stephan’s Law applies to SURFACES, right ?

    How, then, are we allowed to assign this distinction, “surface”, to a VOLUME of “space” ? Further, how are we allowed to imply a fictitious “surface” for which a power output is given by the difference between a “surface” and a VOLUME of “space” that we PRETEND is a “surface” ?

    In other words, does the Stephan Law really allow this? I mean, where exactly is the “surface” for which “P” is being calculated as some difference of two temperatures? This seems to be a made-up surface that does NOT really exist. It seems to be some sort of average surface that is the result of a mathematical creation, rather than a real entity. Consequently, Nicol’s equation #2 seems to be an erroneous extension of the Stephan Law. Stephan’s Law seems to be used to retro-engineer a surface that has no real meaning. Where is the proof that this is a valid extension of that law?

    Referring again to the John Nicol paper [with MY embellishments]:

    If “P”, in the Stephan equation, is “power”, and “Io” is Earth’s received power from the sun, then power radiated must equal power received, in equilibrium, yes? Then “Io” is the “P” variable in the Stephan equation, right?

    If yes, then Io = epsilon . delta . T*4, where “T” is the planetary emission temperature, right?

    So, Io = P = epsilon . delta . T^4


    epsilon . delta . T^4 = Io.

    How, then, can epsilon . delta . T^4 equal any more than this, by a fraction of itself?

    I see dead theories.

    Or am I brain dead? (^_^)

  45. Away for a bit again. Will reply to the last few comments in a week.

  46. A couple hours later, I’m reading what I just wrote, and I think I confused myself, … maybe made some mistakes too. Help appreciated.

  47. gallopingcamel says:

    Robert Kernodle, 2017/08/30 at 3:17 PM
    Those equations make perfect sense but to make it mean something you have to use them to solve a real problem and then compare the temperatures predicted by the equations to observations.
    Upthread I expressed disbelief in the Alarmist dogma that claims 255 K as the temperature of an airless Earth. While we don’t have an airless Earth we do have an airless Moon that receives the same amount of solar radiation. Using FEA (Finite Element Analysis) I was able to predict the temperature of the Moon and compare my model with what NASA measured in their LRE (Lunar Radiometer Experiment). The RMS error between my model and NASA measured night time temperatures was 0.06 Kelvin which is good enough for government work.
    To make the calculated night time temperatures match observations, the surface emissivity (epsilon) of the Moon was set to 0.95 which is pretty close to a Stephan “Black Body”.
    The observed day time temperatures can be explained by assuming the Moon is “Non-Lambertian” which means the albedo varies with the angle of incidence. If you have a high boredom threshold here is a more complete explanation:
    FEAs solve differential equations by numerical analysis. This is a brute force approach used by people like me (Physicist/Engineers) who don’t trust the “Elegant” calculations of my esteemed colleagues in academia. Given that the above model was in good agreement with reality (observations), it was used to estimate the effect of rotation rate on average temperature for an airless Moon:
    While my work is not “Peer Reviewed” it is real science because it replicates observations and the models of other workers such as Vasavada, Tim Channon and “br”.
    At least 99% of “Climate Science” is not science in the generally accepted sense of the word. It may be “Peer Reviewed” yet almost none of it is replicable at the “three sigma” level. Three sigma means that there is only a 0.3% chance that the hypothesis could be false.

  48. AfroPhysics says:

    Robert, excellent graphics! *delta=sigma

  49. sigma, … got it, AP

    . . . “epsilon . delta . temperature^4”, then. equals P (power)

  50. Crap, … I meant … “epsilon . SIGMA . temperature^4”.

  51. Let’s take it real slow for the idiot (^_^):

    SB Law
    epsilon . sigma . T^4 = P

    power that Earth system absorbs from given solar intensity = Io

    In equilibrium, power that Earth system absorbs from given solar intensity = power that Earth system radiates from given solar intensity.

    Assuming that we can use the SB Law for the Earth system:
    epsilon . sigma . T^4 is the power radiated by the earth system.

    Does this not mean that epsilon . sigma . T^4 is also the power absorbed by the Earth system from the given solar intensity?

    Does this not mean that epsilon . sigma . T^4 = Io ?

    How, then, can Nicol’s equation #26 “make sense”?
    Equation #26 says that epsilon . sigma . T^4 = Io + some fraction of itself.
    Equation #26 says that epsilon . sigma . T^4 = epsilon . sigma . T^4 + some fraction of itself.

    epsilon . sigma . T^4
    epsilon . sigma . T^4 + some fraction of itself
    cannot represent the same thing — one is greater than the other, and yet they appear to be set equal.

    The power radiated by the earth system cannot be greater than the power absorbed by the Earth system, which is how I am seeing that equation #26 — a contradiction of what the “equals” sign means.

    Am I totally not getting Nicol’s equation #26 ?

  52. gallopingcamel says:

    Robert Kernodle, 2017/08/31 at 11:13 AM

    You may be over egging the omelet. If you use those Nicol equations to estimate the surface temperature of an airless body they can be arranged as shown below:

    T = {So(1-α)/4εσ}^0.25

    To calculate the temperature of an airless Earth, simply plug in the appropriate values:
    So is TSI = 1367 W m^-2
    α is albedo = 0.3
    ε is emissivity = 1.0
    σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6704 x 10^-8 W m^-2 K^-4

    Viola! T = 255 K

    A “Consensus” of “Climate Scientists” assures us that 255 K is the correct value so the GHE = 288 – 255 = 33 K.

    As so often happens in science the consensus is woefully wrong. The problem is not with the equations but with the assumptions made about the surface of an airless Earth. The equations would yield the correct answer if the entire Earth was at a uniform temperature. However a real Earth is not a thermal superconductor so temperature varies from equator to pole and from day to night.

    Using the same equations you can get the right answer (one that agrees with observations) if you take the trouble to calculate surface temperature as a function of latitude and the time of day. That is a huge amount of work but well within the compass of my ancient HP 2000 with four Intel i3 core processors.

  53. Carl says:

    What temperature an airless Earth would be is a non sequitur. It has always been irrelevant because it conflates two separate questions.

    1) What would the average surface temperature of the Earth be without an atmosphere?
    2) What would the average surface temperature of the Earth be if there were no “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere?

    The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is based on the conjecture that these two temperatures would be the same if there were no “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. In other words, without the presence of “greenhouse gases” the atmosphere would be thermally irrelevant, thermally inert because presumably the atmosphere would have a transmissivity of 1.0 and therefore absorb zero up-going IR radiation. This, of course, would require the atmosphere to be pristine–completely free of particulates.

    At any rate, how does this notion survive the scrutiny of the “scientific community” that presumably practices the scientific method when simple examination of humidity vs. temperature readings and weather balloon soundings using the scientific method shows that water vapor—said to be the most powerful “greenhouse gas”—is, in reality, a surface and lower atmospheric coolant! If there were no water vapor in the Earth’s atmosphere the average surface level air temperature would be higher that it is at present, not lower.

  54. gallopingcamel says:

    Science is useful only as long as is confirmed by what is observed. As Einstein pointed out one experiment could prove him wrong. Feynmann made similar observations.

    Climate Alarmists tell us that CO2 (a trace gas) is a major driver of climate. This idea was stated with astounding clarity by Arrhenius in 1896:
    ““The selective absorption of the atmosphere is……………..not exerted by the chief mass of the air, but in a high degree by aqueous vapor and carbonic acid, which are present in the air in small quantities.”
    The Arrhenius paper can be found here:

    Alarmists call these trace gases “Greenhouse Gases” while implying that the bulk of the atmosphere (the chief mass of the air) has no effect.

    “Climate Realists” consider all gases to be “Greenhouse Gases” and we can prove our assertions by applying equations that govern heat transfer. Thus the surface of Venus is hot because the surface pressure is >90 bars. The Venusian surface temperature would change by less than 10 Kelvin if the CO2 (97% of the atmosphere) were magically replaced by nitrogen. This is because the Cp of CO2 is similar to the Cp of nitrogen. James Hansen’s assertion that CO2 caused a “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” on Venus is a fairy tale.

    Here is a Nat Geo letter that explains the temperature on all seven bodies in our solar system that have significant atmospheres with extraordinary accuracy:

    In Robinson & Catling’s analysis it is the “Bulk of the Atmosphere” that dominates rather then “Trace Gases”. Most papers on “Climate Science” cannot be replicated which is why I deem them “Junk Science”. In sharp contrast, the R&C publication contains enough detail for a layman such as this camel to replicate their work as illustrated here:

  55. Still with the Nicole paper, and trying to seek answers to my questions:

    Either Nicole is not clearly defining what his “Io” [i subscript zero] is, or I am misunderstanding his definition.

    My understanding is that Nicol’s “Io” is NOT the top of atmosphere total solar irradiance, but the percentage of this total irradiance that is absorbed by the Earth system.

    I am not interested in using his equations. I am interested in justifying why HE uses them, per my five-point earlier post, which has not been specifically answered by subsequent comments.

    The way I learn is by asking targeted questions that require targeted answers. If I get side arguments or other approaches, then I just get more confused.

    I realize that the Greenhouse Theory has multiple approaches to show its weaknesses or total invalidity, but I need to take one approach at a time, … one point at a time, and resolve my questions on those EXACT points. Otherwise, I remain lost.

  56. gallopingcamel says:

    Nicol’s equations make sense if his “Io” is the same as my “So”.
    So is TSI = 1367 W m^-2

  57. In Nicol’s paper, the key phrase that I am looking at [his wording] is, … power absorbed from a solar intensity Io [i subscript zero]

    And the key equation that I am questioning is his equation #26:
    (epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4 = Io + (phi)(epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4

    … which appears to be his attempt to apply the Stefan fourth-power law:
    (epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4 = P

    Now if his “Io” is the full 1367 Wm^-2, then this seems to be saying that the Earth system ABSORBS ALL 1367 Wm^-2, … PLUS it radiates ALL of it, PLUS a fraction MORE of it.

    I did not think that scattering and reflection counted as ABSORBED radiation that would contribute to this power at the surface, and so this would make that equation #26 seem even more absurd.

    He writes this equation to account for what he calls [his words], the equilibrium condition at the surface of the Earth.

    If the “equilibrium condition” does, in fact exist, then how can the surface radiate more power than it receives? EQUILIBRIUM does NOT mean this. Where does … (phi)(epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4 … come from?

    EQUILIBRIUM means that
    (epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4 = (epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4
    (epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4 = (epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4 + (phi)(epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4

    That’s NOT what “=” means.

    JP’s approach to spotting the absurdity is to remove the “Io” to reveal a false equality, which leads me to think that Nicol’s “Io” is the full 1367 Wm^-2, removed by JP to simulate night time, showing that, at night, there is this extra magically appearing power, (phi)(epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4, … from a sun that is NOT there or has somehow revved itself up at night and funneled a (phi) fraction of its power through a space-time conduit unbeknownst to humans, to arrive at earth’s surface.

    My approach (attempted approach, I should say) is to spot the absurdity outright, with all the variables there in sight. I don’t know whether I have succeeded or not, but if I have, then I am amazed that Nicol could go through all that masterful high-caliber rigor of minutia analyzing absorption bands — wings, Doppler broadening, etc. — only to show a major screw loose in his application of the Stephan law. How is that possible?

    Or am I the one with the screw loose? Fix me, if yes. [cue soundtrack for Wizard Of Oz, scarecrow song]

  58. Mark says:

    Hello. I find it difficult to follow your superb abstractions. What we do know, is that there is a fraud. We don’t need to convince each other, and we know that truth doesnt always get into the public domain. As a layman, I am in awe of your mathematical prowess, but what are the implications of this. What are the insidious reasons behind the purported falsedom. For example after a multidute of tribulations and executions, we now know/believe the world to be round and not flat, so knowing is the criteria. What can we say to the general public like me, that we are being lied to and why? In order to instruct and educate the layman, what on earth is going on and why? Or is it a pointless timewasting futility for bored people to interject on a forum like this? I personally believe this information is extremely valuable. On Josephs post regarding Existence he mentioned a certain type of people who will get his message. Its based on the Myers/Briggs test which can be done here: for free.
    This website and its contributors are a wealth of knowledge for good.
    Just wanted to acknowlege you great guys.

  59. Mark,

    If you were talking to me, then I suggest that you do NOT be in awe of what I said, at least not yet, until maybe Joseph checks it out, tears it apart and possibly reveals my equally sad confusion. He said he’d be back here next week, and so I hope he will take some time to either confirm or deny your awe, which might be false awe, if I’m really screwing up here. (^_^)

    All I am doing is trying to see how Nicole is applying the basic equation, whose Greek symbols take too much time to format, so I type as follows:

    (epsilon)(sigma)(T)^4 = P

    … which is the “Stefan fourth-power law”, also called the “Stefan–Boltzmann law”, which, spoken in WORDS, reads … epsilon multiplied by sigma multiplied by temperature raised to the fourth power equals the energy radiated per surface area [or Power] of a black body, or, in this case, a nearly black body.

    Nicol dazzles us with his spectral analysis, seems to adhere to the idea that downward radiation from the atmosphere can somehow heat [but only a little] Earth’s surface, and then seemingly confuses all this in a botched application of the Stefan law. His ultimate conclusion is favorable to the idea that CO2 is NOT that big of a deal, but he still clings to the idea that it does what I have come to believe that it CANNOT do AT ALL, in any concentration that Earthlings would ever experience it. He. Just. Can’t. Let. Go. of it completely, … take the plunge, … burn all the bridges to fitting into that brotherhood of fellows who still might accept him a little bit, but who would reject him as a total crank, if he went the full distance to say that the CO2 Greenhouse Effect does not exist. Period.

    I myself am really struggling to believe that I am right. I keep going back to the paper, trying to find where I might have some gross misunderstanding of what he is presenting, but I seem to find more instances of confused ideas, even in his verbal descriptions, where he does some of the very things that Joseph has harped on, like confusing radiation for heat, and thinking that energy or heat can be “trapped”, as if energy were some sort of entity separated from the atoms or molecules that it energizes.

    For such a smart dude, Nicole seems mixed up, and THIS I find disturbing, because I do not have even a fraction of his apparent education, knowledge, and skill at maneuvering such technical ideas. I can’t possibly be correct in finding flaws in his presentation, … can I ?

    As to your comment:

    What can we say to the general public like me, that we are being lied to and why? In order to instruct and educate the layman, what on earth is going on and why? Or is it a pointless timewasting futility for bored people to interject on a forum like this?

    I think many people talking about the CO2 Greenhouse effect honestly believe what they are claiming. Many of this “many”, unfortunately, come by their unfailing belief in the same way that people of great faith come by THEIR unfailing beliefs. They are not confident enough, brave enough, bold enough, … whatever …, to question or challenge dignified authorities.

    People of great technical knowledge, on the other hand, like Stephen Hawking, the late Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, I think might be so specialized in their own unique paths of inquiry that they are blind to the particulars of their own disciplines that would kill the CO2 Greenhouse Theory.
    For these guys, I’m not really sure whether the intent is to lie or the effect of wanting to belong to the popular culture MAKES them liars by way of negligence.

  60. gallopingcamel says:

    @Robert Kernodle,

    I started reading the Nicol paper and found a typo on page 3. Nicol says the sun is 1.5 million km away instead of 150 million km. No big deal…….I mislay decimal points too.

    On page 4 I started to get a sinking feeling as Nicol put himself firmly in the Arrhenius camp by mentioning CO2 and water vapor as examples of “Greenhouse Gases”.

    Pages 4 to 6 contain a spectroscopic analysis of the Greenhouse Effect. This analysis is superficial, lacking detailed radiative-convective heat transfer equations (it is OK to ignore conduction). There is nothing here that can be replicated or falsified. In contrast, Robinson & Catling plugged in the actual numbers for seven bodies with significant atmospheres:

    As I read read on I found Nicol’s discussion of collision broadening useful as far as it went. However it failed to explain that collision broadening causes the temperature gradient in tropospheres to be equal to -g/Cp. In tropospheres, the Robinson & Catling radiative-convective model degenerates into the adiabatic lapse rate that agrees with what my high school physics teacher derived in 1956 using thermodynamics alone. The agreement between the R&C model and what is measured by probes is stunning.

    The Nicol paper does not explain why lapse rates are positive in the stratosphere (except on Venus) or why the transition region (tropopause) occurs at a pressure of 0.1 to 0.2 bars.

    While I admire your dogged determination to understand the Nicol paper you could learn more by reading some textbooks and course notes on atmospheric radiation. Here are my top recommendations. All these works are excellent so I rank them from cheapest to most expensive.

    1. Rodrigo Caballero while he was in the Mathematics Department at University College Dublin (2005-2010) published some course notes which are now difficult to find on the Internet. Thanks to the “Wayback Machine” here is a link that may work:*/
    This is a free download of over 150 pages but you can start at page 130.

    2. Grant Petty’s textbook, available from Amazon at $43:

    3. A Climate Modeling Primer by Kendal McGuffie & Ann Henderson-Sellers. This is a little more pricey.
    Read Chapter 4 on Intermediate Complexity Models.

    If this comment comes across as condescending I abjectly apologize, given that I am not an expert in climate science. What little I know about the subject was learned from Leonard Weinstein, DeWitt Payne, Nicola Scafetta and Robert G. Brown. Scafetta and Brown were esteemed colleagues in the Duke university physics department.

    My field is quantum electro-optics (lasers). My team at Duke university built the world’s brightest polarized gamma ray source:

    All I care about is testing scientific theories or hypotheses against observations and “Outing” junk science. Let the chips fall where they may.

  61. Pingback: The “Heat” issue once again … « Okulær

  62. gallopingcamel says:

    @Robert Kernodle,
    “People of great technical knowledge, on the other hand, like Stephen Hawking, the late Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, I think might be so specialized in their own unique paths of inquiry that they are blind to the particulars of their own disciplines that would kill the CO2 Greenhouse Theory.
    For these guys, I’m not really sure whether the intent is to lie or the effect of wanting to belong to the popular culture MAKES them liars by way of negligence.”

    Carl Sagan was an honest scientist but went over to the “Dark Side” by which I mean that he was seduced by James Hansen and his CO2 nonsense. OK that is pure speculation on my part but in 1967 and 1968 Sagan and Pollock were still writing papers about Venus that were remarkably accurate. These papers recognized that the atmospheric composition (nitrogen versus CO2) was a minor factor. The important factor was the depth of the atmosphere. Here is the correction that Sagan issued when he realized that the Cp of CO2 varies with pressure:…152.1119S

    As an alumnus of Cambridge university in the UK I am dismayed to find that my alma mater is eager to abandon scientific integrity in exchange for “Climate Change” research funding. I have long been a fan of Hawking for the same reason that I was a fan of Fred Hoyle (our team). It was a great disappointment to find that Fred Hoyle’s ideas about “Continuous Creation” were wrong. Now I have to question Hawking’s sanity when he opined that Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord would have dire consequences. Great men can be dumber than us little people!

    Sagan’s “Cosmos” was a remarkable TV experience so I expected the Tyson update would be something wonderful given that the series would have the advantage of the Hubble and other space telescopes. What a disappointment! I could have stood one episode of Alarmist BS but Tyson managed to push that non-science (nonsense) over and over again.

  63. Carl Sagan and others, I suspect, did not (do not) want to spend their time applying their disciplined knowledge to the area of climate change, because they have other things more important to do. Consequently, they trust fellow “scientists” IN the SPECIFIC area of climate to know what they are doing, and they trust what the collective group of these particular “scientists” say.

    These guys (Sagan et. al.) probably want to be ethical, responsible, and interested in the future of human kind, and so they figure (I speculate) that the climate “scientists”, being in the brotherhood of scientists, are right — their “right” message is the socially responsible message to convey.

    Alas, they seem to have no clue, because they cannot take time from their specialized interests to focus their intelligence on the SPECIFIC details, confirm these details, and arrive at a scary conclusion that many climate “scientists” might not know what they are doing.

    Imagine the dissonance in believing that your fellow scientists know what they are doing, only to find out that they do not.

    I think that if highly intelligent people were going to voice policy choices in the name of science, then they would take the time to CONFIRM that the science supporting these policies was right. Otherwise, take no stand on the issue, because to use fame as a device to push policy choices, in lieu of confirming the science behind those policies, is blind trust, … to the point of negligence.

    These people are capable of knowing better, but they seem not to TRY to know better, and this makes them frauds in a soft way. A reasonable scientist trained in the same advanced physics as climate scientists should know better, and should make it a point to know better, if he/she is going to parrot the appeals of the climate “scientists”.

  64. gallopingcamel says:

    @Robert Kernodle,
    Whatever the motives shoddy science by some creates distrust of all science in the eyes of the public and rightly so IMHO. If science tolerates fraud among people who claim to be scientists there will be a loss of prestige at the very least.

    I believe that more than 99% of “Climate Science” is not science in the generally accepted sense because as in “Behavioral Sciences” a two sigma standard is the norm.

    The two sigma standard means that there is a 5% chance that the result that the “Null Hypothesis” is correct. In other words there is a 5% chance that the observed result is due to sampling or experimental error.

    In some fields of research, 99.7% of the published papers can be “Junk” as you can see here:

    Contrast this with real science where a standard of 3 sigma or higher applies. The three sigma standard means that the likelihood of the result being due to random factors is less than 0.3%. For example, the Higgs boson is said to have a mass of ‎125.09±0.21 GeV/c2. Note that the error range is +/- 0.17% which is better than 3 sigma. The publication of this result was delayed several months until enough measurements were collected to achieve the three sigma standard.

    “Junk Science” has a massive effect on public policy in medicine, social sciences, energy policy and many other fields. Here is a video that may help:

  65. According to the “Tallbloke’s Talkshop” website:

    John Nicol is/was? a PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, and he is the person who wrote the paper, Climate Change: (A Fundamental Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect), which is the paper being discussed in Joseph’s “Upadate #3”, and the paper on whose equations I have been critically focused.

    Nicol is a skeptic who lends great support to the idea that CO2 has negligible effect on Earth’s climate. But the way he goes about making his case still involves what I see as basic physics erroneously applied, as Joseph has explained it, and as I understand it now. This paper, thus, serves as an excellent study in what is going wrong in the math, and, amazingly (I say again, “amazingly) what is going wrong at a very … very basic level of understanding, which a PhD in physics should have mastered, but (amazingly, again) has not. How is this possible?

    Nicol appears to do one of the best jobs that I have ever seen explaining the spectral absorption bands of CO2 (I still need to study this more). I trust that he’s got all this right. But all this minutia of detail is of no use in a misapplied equation, based on a misapplied basic understanding of how all this minutia is relevant to that equation. I honestly still do not understand all this minutia, but I think I understand how he goes wrong in trying to apply the details of this minutia to the more general idea into which it fits. I don’t have to know how a transistor works in order to know how to operate a radio, or to know that the transistors are not placed properly for the radio to work properly.

    Nicol goes to great lengths to figure out how much radiation is given off by CO2, and this is what all that minutia enables him to do. But then he takes this meticulously figured-out quantity and does something strange with it. I don’t care how good you are at figuring out what that quantity of radiation is — if you, then, do something weird with it (after all that work) then you have defeated your efforts, by not being equally as meticulous in how you apply that meticulously figured-out quantity. It’s like taking great pains to make a homemade pumpkin pie [which I just did], where you grow the pumpkins, make the homemade puree, make the crust from scratch, make the aluminum foil edge-protectors so the crust does not burn [yea, I did all that too], and then eat a slice of the pie with turnip greens and vinegar on top. That’s not how you eat pumpkin pie.

    I continue to study this paper to learn what not to do. I’m not done with this yet, but the present post has already gotten too long, and so that’s enough for now, until the next installment. (^_^) [Oh no, … just let it go, Kernodle !]

  66. In that paper, I just found this:

    … not that big a deal, I guess, but if you were doing a complex calculation, then you surely would want all your units to work out too, and if one were missing, then this could drive you insane — it would me — or cause you to make a silly mistake.

  67. Rosco says:

    The “well established fourth power law derived by Stefan which states that the power radiated per unit area of the heated surfaces is given by P =e.sigma T^4” is absolute rubbish.

    The experiments that lead to the relationship had no factor called emissivity. Emissivity is an afterthought and is a calculated value which experimental evidence establishes is not necessarily constant – especially for gases.

    Similarly the “net” form of the SB equation was never observed during the experiments – it too is an afterthought which is almost always misinterpreted.

    It is not possible to derive this “net” equation from the empirical data without knowing sigma.

    It simply states that the sign of the equation indicates the direction of heat flow – nothing more. Any further algebraic manipulation of this is simply conjecture.

    To visualise this simply observe two Planck curves for different temperatures – the SB value is the area under each curve, “heat”, s(T1^4 – T2^4), is the area between the 2 curves, and the value of heat will equal 0 when the upper curve and the lower curve meet at a curve plotted for the equilibrium temperature which will obviously be higher than the lower curve and lower than the higher curve.

    Finally the black body radiation laws were derived from experimental data where the radiation exhibits a continuous spectrum. We know gases do not exhibit such a phenomenon and therefore the application of the SB law with its intimate relationship to continuous Planck curves is probably wrong anyway.

    PS sigma is W.m-2.K-4 – pedantic but correct – and it is a big deal.

    Roy Spencer produced a spreadsheet establishing the “steel greenhouse” effect. As Joe pointed out he defied the laws of thermodynamics. But his “equations” are not even dimensionally accurate – he adds Kelvin to Kelvinmetre ?

    I thought Kelvinmetre used to make refrigerators.

  68. Rosco,

    A “Kelvin-nightmare” is what you were looking for, I think. (^_^)

    Anyhow, obsessing further on the Nicol paper, I came up with a critique that shows (I think) the absurdity in the reasoning process, even trying to apply the SB law. I wanted to do math symbols, and so I made a .pdf document, which I posted at the following link:

    I’m exercising brain cells that I haven’t used in a while, so you might find weaknesses or even major screw ups. A critique of my critique, therefore, is, without question, something that I do not fear.

  69. gallopingcamel says:

    Robert Kernodle and “Rosco”. We seem to be converging on the idea that S-B got it right.
    In my study of lunar surface temperature S-B was used to predict surface temperature that agreed with actual measurements within 1 Kelvin.

    Links posted earlier speak to this.

  70. gallopingcamel,

    Just to clarify, … my interest in the Nicol paper was an interest in the study of erroneous thinking by highly educated people in the field. I was trying to analyze the errors in the thinking, and, from what I can tell, I’m, at least, on the right track. I finally started reading Joseph’s deconstruction of the steel greenhouse abomination, and his words there seem to parallel mine, which I arrived at independently, before I ever read his deconstruction.

    What amazes me is that I have nowhere near the technical background of Nicol or Postma, and yet a few explanations by Postma is all it took to open my mind to try to find Nicol’s errors. I find the detailed study of such errors very enlightening.

  71. Rosco says:

    I have no problem with applying the SB equation to situations where it is appropriate.

    To my mind it is only applicable to relating power to temperature in circumstances where the emitting object displays the features of black body radiation – the emission of a continuous spectrum. Obviously devices to measure temperature remotely using the “laws” of radiant emission are possible. Obviously a relationship between black body radiation and real objects yielding the factor called emissivity is possible by experimental observations.

    What has never been verified is the extension of those “laws” by algebra.

    At the end of the nineteenth century the science establishment considered the failure to produce an equation to describe radiant emissions as an embarrassing failure. Planck talked about his hypothesis as an act of desperation because a solution needed to be found at all costs.

    Thus I do not believe there is mathematical validation for all of the algebra using the SB equation to sum up fluxes and calculate the resulting temperature because applying exactly the same algebra using Planck curves does not give the same answer.

    It is incongruous that adding 239.7 + 239.7 = 479.4 at 303 K as per a University greenhouse lecture fails totally when one applies exactly the same algebra using Planck’s equation and therefore it cannot be right.

    Graphs are used all the time in science to verify and explain algebraic relationships.

    All of the sceptics Joe is talking about defend the algebra of the greenhouse effect using the SB equation to the death and insult any who dare even question it but none have even thought about the relationship between Planck and the SB “laws” and how much of the algebra they apply fails.

  72. Rosco,
    You said:

    Thus I do not believe there is mathematical validation for all of the algebra using the SB equation to sum up fluxes and calculate the resulting temperature because applying exactly the same algebra using Planck curves does not give the same answer.

    Can you point me to some references that show or discuss the Planck-curve analysis? Have you written anything on this?

  73. Carl says:

    “Obviously devices to measure temperature remotely using the ‘laws’ of radiant emission are possible. Obviously a relationship between black body radiation and real objects yielding the factor called emissivity is possible by experimental observations.”

    Emissivity is a “fudge factor” that is used in calculations because no actual relationship exists between the temperature of different objects and the amount of electromagnetic radiation that they emit respectively.

    At 15C:
    A mythical “blackbody” will emit 391 W/m^2
    Aluminum Foil will emit 15.6 W/m^2
    A Carbon filament will emit 301 W/m^2
    Cast Iron will emit 172 W/m^2
    Cadmium will emit 7.8 W/m^2
    Roofing paper will emit 356 W/m^2

    In order to be accurate, infrared thermometers have to be calibrated using an actual thermometer that is measuring the temperature of the object being remotely sensed. One adjusts the “emissivity” of the meter until the temperature readout on the IR thermometer matches the reading on the thermometer. One then assumes that other objects made of the same material having the same surface characteristics will have a similar emissivity.

    Without the “fudge factor” called emissivity the S-B formula is useless at predicting the amount of radiation that the surface of an object that is not a “blackbody” will emit at whatever temperature it might be at. Keep in mind also that the S-B formula applies only to the radiant emission of a “surface.”

    Stefan-Boltzmann law: “the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”

    The atmosphere does not have a “surface” yet the S-B formula is routinely used to calculate atmospheric radiation.

  74. So, who started this whole trend of using the S-B formula to calculate atmospheric radiation? Who signed off on this approach, and why has it been allowed, propagated in culture, and allowed to stand as gospel?

    From what I’m reading here, the SB formula has been reduced to the BS formula.

  75. Joe Postma says:

    Well that’s exactly the whole thing about this entire alarmist enterprise – they’re just bullshitting about every possible thing that can possibly scientifically apply. The entire thing is a simulacrum – the appearance of science without actually being science! It’s tremendously more clever than mere pseudoscience, although pseudoscience it is. It is pseudoscience but at a much more advanced and clever level. It succeeds in this way because instead of being so obviously ridiculous as claiming that the Earth is flat (although it does use flat Earth physics! lol!! can you believe it!? it just doesn’t say that that’s what it’s doing), it claims things about what energy can do while exploiting humanity’s mass lack of knowledge of thermodynamics which only much less than 1% of the population ever actually gets exposed to, and even of those, most still have just forgotten about the essentials because it was just something you needed to memorize for a few weeks to get through a physics course, and now you’re off doing entirely other things that depend in no cognizant way upon thermodynamics and distinctions between energy and heat and temperature.

    The entire approach of the entire thing is bullshit. The entire thing.

  76. I just watched your long-presentation video, JP. I’ve also been studying some of your other posts.

    I think I’m more up to speed now, and I feel that my assessments are, at least, close to the target, if not a direct bulls eye hit.

    This really is insidious — how intelligence can be warped into misunderstandings that this same intelligence has the tools to make look intelligent, to fool those who are either less intelligent or less trained.

    It reminds me of what I have done in some of my art, where I create these fantasy alphabets and then arrange them into compositions that look like language, but they have no basis in reality at all. I don’t even have any sense of correspondence between the fantasy letters and any known letter of any known language — I just go by visceral visual appeal and awareness of a human fascination for unexplained, cryptic “thingies” on the page. One set of alphabets I created by extracting human hair formations from my shower with clear tape and then embellishing these to make individual letters that I combined into an alien musical composition.

    I get the feeling that some climate scientists might be doing something like this without even realizing it. And then news media outlets get hold of it and treat it like serious information, which they hype with everyday, emotional language to entertain their sheep, who are not willing to take the time to try to learn whether what they are being fed is valid or not.

    I used to be a climate alarm sheep, remember, but I broke out of my pen and wandered off my range, ……………. obviously. (^_^)

  77. Joe Postma says:

    Missing some comments? Haven’t been notified of anything I need to approve, unless they somehow went to trash.

    Oh yes one did…because of the link I guess.

  78. Joe Postma says:

    Hah hey that’s a good one. Seems like it needs higher resolution though.

  79. Joe Postma says:

    And yes Robert it is insidious:

    “This really is insidious — how intelligence can be warped into misunderstandings that this same intelligence has the tools to make look intelligent, to fool those who are either less intelligent or less trained.”

    I can’t help but be reminded of all the Gnostic literature talking about how this entire material universe and everything in it is an illusion, a simulacrum, a false copy of reality, not the real spiritual mental thing that is actually supposed to exist, a trap, a clever trap, etc.

  80. It’s one thing to question all of reality philosophically, but quite another to make philosophical commitments (i.e., via a philosophy of science) to certain models of reality and then distort these models to misrepresent such commitments.

    One is a valid exercise. The other is pathological thinking, in the sense that it promotes diseased thinking in those who wish to commit to such models of reality.

    I, for example, do not believe in a reality separate from human perception. Rather, it is a composite of human senses and something outside of human senses that we cannot ever grasp, because total grasping would require indeterminate (infinite?) sensing. But I DO believe in the integrity of the senses, and when grave inconsistencies occur here, then this is wrong sensing, hence wrong “reality”, or a wrong reality commitment.

  81. Joe Postma says:

    Very well said.

    For the last part though I would say:

    “Rather, it is a composite of human senses and something outside of human senses that we cannot grasp YET”

  82. Joe Postma says:

    Although, then, that’s also a good point about sensing everything would be infinite sensing, and hence make everything indistinguishable. Well…maybe that’s God-perception.

  83. AfroPhysics says:

    Robert, Hilarious graphic!

    I am wondering if you could use your talent for another visual.

    Imagine something like this:

    (maybe different graphic via google images)

    You overlay the flat earth over tv screens.

    The bottom reads something like “flat earth society meet” or “97% of climate scientists agree … earth is flat”.

    I think you get it. We need to shame these goblins.

  84. Rosco says:

    Robert perhaps the graphic should have the thought bubble emanating from a cow’s arse ?

    You said in a previous quote –
    You said:

    Thus I do not believe there is mathematical validation for all of the algebra using the SB equation to sum up fluxes and calculate the resulting temperature because applying exactly the same algebra using Planck curves does not give the same answer.

    Can you point me to some references that show or discuss the Planck-curve analysis? Have you written anything on this?”

    I don’t regard Joe’s site as a place for self promotion so I’ll simply give you my email address and you can send me an email and I’ll send you something –


  85. But yah great idea we should start a meme campaign! It’s their damned graphics with a flat earth…time to use it against them! There’s no damned thing they can say to justify it. “Oh it’s just a simple model.” Yah of a flat earth! “Oh it’s just an average model.” Yah of a flat earth! Idiots.

  86. I can summarize!

    Adding 240 W/m^2 together gives 480. Ok.

    What happens if you add the two Planck curves totalling 240 W/m^2 together? You should get the Planck curve for 480 right?

    No you don’t! You get a curve which is two-times a single 240 curve, but this is not the curve for an actual source at a temperature to emit 480.

    This proves that adding fluxes together as if they are always heat produces something non-physical, not found in physics and thermodynamics, and hence is another way to show that the idea is a non-existent.

    The only thing fluxes do in thermodynamics and physics is subtract, which result gives heat. The difference of the flux curves is the difference in energy frequency populations of the two objects at their temperatures.

  87. AfroPhysics says:

    LOL! But we need sciency diagrams, like

  88. AfroPhysics says:

    Holy crap, I just found this

    Sneaky sneaky flat earthers.

  89. AfroPhysics says:

    Robert, it’s really good. I got a laugh. Don’t want to hurt your feelings, but it should have a deadpan serious tone. Like it’s real science.

  90. AfroP,

    No hurt feelings here. I’m used to critiques. (^_^)

    I proceeded on your suggestion in a loose way. I don;t know about the deadpan tone, though. I fear that somebody might believe it, if done that way. (^_^) It would be effective only as an inside joke for those in the know.

    Deadpan?! Nah, … even more ridiculous, I say. Put all the attending “scientists” in propeller beanies. Put some clowns in there too…. and maybe the semi-transparent image of Dr. Mann floating overhead, as if a watchful spirit protecting the sanctity of the delusions.

    Oh, the possibilities are so rich.

  91. What happens if you add the two Planck curves totalling 240 W/m^2 together? You should get the Planck curve for 480 right?

    No you don’t! You get a curve which is two-times a single 240 curve, but this is not the curve for an actual source at a temperature to emit 480.

    It’s not even a Planck curve, is it? It’s a unicorn horn, right? It sort of looks like a Planck curve, but we all know that there’s an invisible horse located just underneath it. It’s just a “simple model” of a unicorn, of course, and so we only show the horn to make things more parsimonious and manageable.

    I’ll see if I can whip up the graphic on this.

  92. Maybe something like this is:

  93. Gary H Cook says:

    Could some help me with a response to this? The Simple Proof of Man-made Global Warming I am a chemist, but some of the math here is beyond me.

  94. Carl says:

    Don’t you love it when commentators start out by making absolutist statements such as, “Today I’m going to talk about some simple factual observations that anyone can make, that unambiguously prove human activity is driving warming of the Earth” and then proceed to make assertions that are highly contested, even disproven through scientific observation and experimentation. One such assertion is his belief that the temperature of sea level air is wholly determined by the size of the “atmospheric window”.

    There must be a name for this debating technique, a technique in which one seeks to affirm the truth of an argument and to get people to agree with the argument even before it is presented. It is sort of like gas-lighting in that it makes you doubt your own perception of reality because he is stating as the absolute truth–at truth with which nobody disagrees–something that you know to be false.

  95. Just complete and utter lies. Just bald faced lying. It’s a conman trick…that style.

  96. Gary C.,

    I am neither a chemist, nor a mathematician, nor a physicist, but I stopped reading at the link you provided, when I came upon the following sentence:

    Some wavelengths of heat fly right out into space unhindered, while other wavelengths are absorbed by the atmosphere, and that heat stays there, where we’re able to detect its wavelength with our spectrometer.

    As far as I know, “heat” does NOT have wavelengths. So what “flies right out into space unhindered” are NOT heat wavelengths, … unless, of course, you believe in apple vocalizations.

    A “heat wavelength” is nonsense, gibberish, a non-reality. Then he says “other wavelengths are absorbed by the atmosphere” — okay, this might be true, if he is referring to radiation, which is NOT “heat”.

    But then he says, “that heat stays there”, as if the wavelengths absorbed were “heat wavelengths” (nonsense) and as though heat could stay anywhere. So, you’ve got three layers of nonsense in that statement alone – (1) heat has wavelengths, (2) wavelengths can stay in place (nonsense – waves are motion), and (3) heat (as “wavelengths”) can stay in place (nonsense – heat is not a substance that stays in place).

    So, it goes without saying that what a spectrometer detects is NOT heat wavelengths.

    All the boastful certainty at the beginning of that article, thus, is based on bullshit, and so I wouldn’t bother trying to understand the math, because my guess is that any math based on this sort of confusion of language is mathemagic, and, unless you are interested in magic (which I am, so I’ll go back and read the whole article now), if I were you, then I wouldn’t worry about understanding this as valid math.

  97. Gary, a gas can be warmed by radiative heat transfer. That’s fine. That is also not the radiative greenhouse effect upon which climate alarm rests.

    The radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm goes further, and says that by the act of the atmosphere becoming warmer from absorbing heat from the surface, this in turn causes the still-cooler atmosphere to back-heat the warmer surface and this is why there is global warming. That of course is a violation of the Laws of Thermo. The cooler atmosphere does not heat the warmer surface, but their radiative greenhouse models for climate alarm have the cooler atmosphere supplying ~150% more heating energy than the Sun itself provides! Is that at all reasonable to you? It ain’t to me. And it isn’t to physics and actual thermodynamics either for the simple fact that the cooler atmosphere can send no heat at all whatsoever to the warmer surface, let alone 150% more than the Sun does. Climate alarm powers itself with the non-existent heat from the cooler atmosphere. And by the way, it justifies this by saying that sunshine itself can’t make anything warmer than -18C.(!) Are these people from the Arctic Circle or something? Visit any place closer to the equator than 70 degrees latitude away, and you can sure feel how HOT sunshine heating is. They say it’s -18C worth and that’s it…and then proceed to make the atmosphere a source of heat with more energy than the Sun.


  98. I think I misunderstood Gary C. about the math thing. Now I’m thinking he wanted to reply to the article in question, but the math here at Climate Of Sophistry is beyond him to the point that he might not be able to use it in his reply.

    So, let me be clear now: I was NOT calling JP’s math or anybody else’s math here BS. Rather, I was assuming that the author of the questionable article employed some math (which I had not read far enough in that article yet to know whether he did or not). Any math that supported the questionable article would, then, be BS. Any math here at CS used to point that out would be anti-BS math. (^_^).

    Whew, I hate confusion.

  99. Joseph E Postma says:

    ^ lol 🙂

  100. … still not done with that article.

    The author writes:

    Spectroscopy is hard science. We don’t have to model or predict. Simply by pointing our instruments at the sky, we can, right now, directly observe and identify the greenhouse gases, and measure exactly how much radiative energy the atmosphere is absorbing and keeping here on Earth. This direct, non-ambiguous spectroscopic reading is the “smoking gun” that proves the excess heat energy being trapped in our atmosphere is due to CO2. That excess CO2 is produced by humans burning fossil fuels.

    He appeals to the difficulty of spectroscopy, implying that it is way too difficult a subject for ordinary humans reading his article to understand, and so best to take his word about conclusions drawn from this subject, which he portrays as accurate conclusions on his part [and you HAVE to take his word for it, because you lowly non-scientist just wouldn’t understand, if he tried to explain, which he probably would make a fool of himself trying, because HE doesn’t know what the hell those details say for real himself, and he avoids revealing this by putting on his bravado act of confidence].

    His “smoking gun” seems more like a steaming pile to me. He uses cool-sounding words like “spectroscopic” (ooo, impressive!). He speaks with such confidence (“directly observe”, “measure exactly”, “non-ambiguous”, “proves”) , which I see as an excessive effort to engineer his audience’s belief.

    Here let me give it a try:

    I can directly observe this author’s intent to measure exactly his words to manipulate his audience in non-ambiguous terms to prove
    what a proper analysis would show is overselling a shoddy product of the imagination.

    And you HAVE to believe me, because psychology and rhetoric are hard subjects, and I have done the work for you of distilling the conclusions from the avalanche of complexity of these subjects that your mere laypeople [notice politically-correct gender neutrality — yay!] minds could not handle.

  101. AfroPhysics says:

    Climate junk science would predict rainforests to be hottest places due to all that water vapor.

    (average daily temperature)

    All that backradiation is not working right!

  102. Carl says:

    This graph is useful at defining at least 9 of the Earth’s various “climates” and puts to bed the notion that there exists a single “global” climate that is changing. It also shows that the most profound effect that the greenhouse gas called water vapor has on a climate is to create life. It changes desert climates where life is struggling to survive into tropical rainforest climates that are teaming with life, both flora and fauna. The IPCC insists that humanity has to mobilize to stop this process, to stop the rise of humidity levels globally.

    Notice something else. The general trend of cooling temperatures is strongly related to latitude–the Tundra being the furthest north. The subtropical deserts–the hottest climates–are not the furthest south though. Tropical rainforests are closer to the Equator than the Subtropical deserts, which means that the high level of precipitation (along with the high humidity present there) have a cooling, not a warming, effect on Tropical rainforests.

  103. If I had to respond to the presentation that Gary C. pointed out at this link, …

    … then here is how my present understanding would shape my words:

    In making his case that human activity is driving warming of the Earth, Brian Dunning claims “factual observations”, “unambiguous proof”, “solid basics”, “absolute measurements”, “over which there is no debate”, and “things nobody disagrees with”, as he credits himself with presenting information in a way that SHOULD be “completely non-controversial”.

    These bold assertions of certainty are little more than his pretentious, swaggering display of arrogance in contriving words to sell a false belief system. His “factual observations”, first confuse “heat” and “radiation” in such a way that he freely exchanges one concept for the other, when this is NOT at all correct. Second, as he attempts to expand on his claims, he continues to descend into absurdity by speaking of “heat wavelengths”, “trapping of heat wavelengths”, “trapping of heat”, and other associated confusions. A properly informed person does NOT speak of heat in terms of wavelengths, or in terms of “trapping heat” — these are not correct physical concepts.

    His two main points: (1) “rising CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely produced by human activity”, and (2) “that same CO2 is warming the planet” are both points that other scientists (who CORRECTLY understand physics) DO debate and DO disagree with, thus disproving his claims to the contrary. What so few people understand, in fact, is that these other scientists exist, and the reason that so few people know about these other scientists is that a collective movement suppresses their voices, tarnishes their names, and ruins their reputations for speaking out against the bad science that has shaped popular, politicized opinions.

    Dunning feigns an understanding of spectroscopy, and yet, he seems oblivious to the fact that Earth receives no more radiation for more CO2 to absorb than the Sun already provides with its relatively constant input of light. You could add all the CO2 you wanted, but if Earth only receives so much sunlight, then where exactly does all the additional radiation come from that all the additional CO2 might absorb?

    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already absorbing that radiation. Dunning, like others, seems to think that by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, more radiation than the sun supplies is somehow becoming available for that added CO2 to absorb. Again, there is only so much radiation to absorb! The sun is the only source that supplies this much! CO2 is already absorbing all this that it can! Where is the extra radiation coming from that added CO2 would absorb? Dunning’s whole supposed “proof” falls apart, because of this fact alone. NASA scientists knew this in 1971, and yet NASA today seems to have caved in to popular opinion, I’m speculating to keep a favorable appearance for funding purposes, public respect, and other political (not scientific) reasons.

    In his attempt to drive the nail into the coffin of anybody who might disagree with him, Dunning notes what he calls a “spike” in satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation in the 15 µm range of CO2, but he either neglects to mention or is ignorant of the fact that Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation, overall, has been INCREASING, which seems to suggest that Earth is radiating MORE (cooling MORE via radiation) to outer space, despite continued increases in human-caused CO2. This is one “absolute measurement” that he leaves out of his discussion.

    Dunning’s whole focus on the CO2 greenhouse theory is arguably futile anyway, since this theory’s factual base is not as solid as he imagines. But, even ignoring this, the glaring way he mangles thermodynamic concepts does not lend much credibility to his overflowing confidence.

  104. And speaking of the problem with skeptics who are not skeptical enough, I just found a 2014 article by MIT News that I had not come across before. It’s located at this link:

    My first impression was … What? … Really? … MIT said this in 2014? … Seriously?!

    Here’s the scratch-my-head quote:

    While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise. At the same time, the atmosphere absorbs more and more incoming solar radiation; it’s this enhanced shortwave absorption that ultimately sustains global warming.

    My question to these folks would have been, “… bend over backwards much to save a dying theory’s ass?”

    Am I missing some critical understanding, or is this quote really as stupid as I currently think it is?

  105. So, MIT sometimes stands for “Missing Intelligence Team”, I guess.

    Dear MIT, how exactly would “more and more incoming solar radiation” arise? How would this “enhanced shortwave absorption” happen, if the sun is still emitting the same power? How would increased outgoing longwave radiation somehow coincidentally occur with this supposed “enhanced shortwave absorption”?

    There would appear to be some magical mechanisms underlying this proposed balancing act.

    MIT, remember.

    Magicians In Total denial

  106. So, … the MIT researchers in that article I had grave doubts about seemed to think that there was some way that increased global warming from CO2 increased water vapor to an extent that more global water vapor was appearing and being heated by available solar radiation.

    Okay, so wouldn’t more water vapor heated by sunlight then emit additional infrared radiation, thereby having a cooling effect? And has global water vapor increased to the level that its increased heating would have the effect suggested?

    Well, according to these two sources of global water-vapor information …


    Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.



    NO. The trend in global water vapor seems so unremarkable that the MIT mechanism seems like a pipe dream. Moreover, it seems like a pipe dream largely enabled by computer models, in the absence of actual measurements.

  107. In the water-vapor-anomaly graph above, I added the red line at “0” and the red ellipse to highlight the negative-to-no trend between 1989 and 1998. This helps to clarify that the positive trend of 1.14 % per decade is really pretty meaningless, because it is manufactured by choosing a starting point to measure a positive trend at a NEGATIVE reading on the other side of “0”.

    I’m guessing that if you compared satellite data for outgoing longwave radiation to water vapor anomaly for the years 1998 through 2012, then you would find the outgoing longwave radiation trend accelerating as the water vapor trend <bdecelerating. I haven’t done this comparison, but I’m just speculating by eyeballing.

    MIT — “Minds Intolerant of Truth”

  108. TYPO CORRECTION (to avoid looking too stupid):

    … then you would find the outgoing longwave radiation trend accelerating as the water vapor trend wasdecelerating.

  109. Damn it, I hate not having editing capability. I missed a space, as you can see.

    I give up. It is what it is. If I try again, then I’ll probably misspell “the” (“teh”, or “tje”, or “rhe”).

  110. Carl says:

    The three most essential things that must be present for the biosphere to thrive because they make photosynthesis possible are 1) CO2 (currently only 40% of what it should be for optimal plant growth), 2) H2O (a self-limiting surface and lower atmospheric coolant) and 3) thermal energy (the Earth’s current average global temperature is ~10C lower than it was during most of the Triassic and Jurassic Periods when the biosphere was profoundly productive.)

    You have to be impressed at how successful the propaganda campaign has been. Although difficult to accurately measure, it would seem that a large swath of humanity, including otherwise intelligent and well educated scientists, have come to believe that all three of the above are a danger to the biosphere. The IPCC even goes so far as to assert that future global warming caused by increasing levels of water vapor induced into existence by rising carbon dioxide levels threatens to cause “substantial species extinction!”

    We look back and wonder how people could have been so ignorant as to have believed in a geocentric model of the Solar System? Some time hence people will look back at early 21st century and wonder the same thing about us. How could those people have been so ignorant as to believe that relatively low levels of carbon dioxide induced the global humidity to go up and this in turn caused global warming, which they believed was a bad thing?

    The delusion:
    CO2 – bad
    H2O vapor – bad
    warmth – bad

    The reality:
    CO2 – good
    H2O vapor – good
    warmth – good

  111. The delusion:
    Humans — bad
    Nature without humans — good

    THEIR reality:
    the delusion

  112. Over 70% of Earth’s surface is water. All plant life requires CO2. The human respiratory process is regulated by CO2. Humans are warm-blooded creatures — we cool ourselves by generating water droplets (sweat).

    The climate alarmist’s perfect world would be half ice covered, half populated, silicone based life, anaerobic metabolism, raceless, sexless, all one neutral skin color and mobile phones and coffee cups built into their hands as normal extensions of the average person.

  113. Joseph E Postma says:

    Good grief I think we’re facing aliens…and they want this planet or something…lol

  114. AfroPhysics says:

    JP, please help me out.

    I keep getting sent to this liar’s page when I present your work in debates:

    I can debunk some of it, but the number of lies and accusations are too profound.

    You gotta have a quick defense to this garbage. You must protect your reputation from these goblins.

    I think it’s worth your time to write a blog post debunking this, just so one can quickly reply to that trash post.

    Thank you for all your great work.

  115. Yeah, I’d like to see JP take that skepticalscience article apart too.

    Note this quote from that article, rating high on my bullshitometer:

    All that is done, however, is to use a brilliant and sophisticated technique, taught only to the geniuses among us, called averaging! And of course, simple models are used in any classroom…it is how we learn.

    … to which my response is this:

  116. I did deal with those freaks…they likely deleted all my comments after my trouncing them there.

    Great idea though- I’ll write up a full blog post response!

  117. Debunking the huge mound of sophistry trash can be exhausting, I guess, allowing their flawed paradigm to endure simply by wasting your time trying to debunk the minutia of their trash, instead of using your time to try to present the better paradigm.

    For example, I will now present a sophisticated argument that I am NOT alive, and I challenge you to debunk it:

    The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics dictates that there are an indeterminate number universes of every possible outcome involving objects that are practically the same appearance in all those indeterminate universes. In one or more of those universes, I am now dead. In others, I was not even born. In still others, I am yet to be born.

    Consequently, to call me “alive” is an overly simple model of the ultimate reality of which I am part. I am neither alive nor dead, but both. Consequently, I am neither typing this post nor NOT typing this post, but both, yet neither. To say simply that I am “alive”, therefore, is incorrect. I clearly am NOT.

    So, before you tell me how best to organize my finances, you first have to convince me that I am alive. Otherwise, your financial advice is mere denialist blather.

  118. I was wondering whether rosco made some later comments that also got deleted over at the skepticalscience website. He was moving along pretty well, and the zombies were ganging up on him pretty good. I think my response would have been to let idiots enjoy their idiocy and spend my time in other ways. Maybe that’s what rosco did.

  119. No.

    Those old threads have been edited, ALL over that micky mouse site, i have been reading it for years, a decade atleast, use the wayback machine to see how they constructively silence anyone handing them their ass’s.

    They dont just delete postings, they edit their oppositions postings aswell, they have to as when they delete postings, post numbers change, [15] becomes [6] if 9 posts are deleted etc.

    I Despise them, they typify leftist ”thinking” everything is thrown at ”perception” and any amount of deception is quite legitimate in their minds, we used to call them the ”tree house kidz” when they first appeared.

    G. Ashe.

  120. I read that conversation again, rinse wash repeat.
    If you put 2 objects in a perfectly reflective vacuum chamber, so no energy both physical and none physical could escape the chamber, when the 2 objects level to the same temperature, would they stay like that forever, as long as nothing changed ?,
    Would the 2 energy volumes in the chamber stay exactly the same forever more ?.
    No additional physical heat is being created, will the free floating LWIR photon volume remain the same, and the thermalised energy creating the equal temperatures in each block remain the same ?.
    Is each block receiving photons of equal resonance, and will those photons resonate on the outside of the impacted molecule, and then deflect a milli-second later……..?.
    I am hoping for yes yes yes yes, but could have been worded better.
    G. Ashe

  121. And in addition, will each object be deflecting 50% of its own emitted photons deflected and reflected back to it, and 50% from the other object, ?.

  122. Sardonic,

    I figured as much for the walking-brain-dead, zombie alarmist skept-sci (or should I say “sci-fi”) website. I was thinking how strange that no responses by Joseph Postma were there (given how able he is to defend his positions, and willing to do so), and how strange rosco was very visible in the beginning of the thread, but then (it’s a long thread) he just disappeared from the “dialogue” (I mean, “monologue”) later.

    But back to my favorite quote from that sci-fi (I mean,”skept-sci”) website:

    All that is done, however, is to use a brilliant and sophisticated technique, taught only to the geniuses among us, called averaging! And of course, simple models are used in any classroom…it is how we learn.

    Great, I am now relieved that it is so simple. This means that, say in the future, when technology might enable us to predict a Carrington-Event solar storm, we would apply this “brilliant and sophisticated technique” to engineer a solution to save us from the ensuing disruption of the power grid.

    Here’s how it would work: (1) Figure the total severity of the coronal mass ejection on one hemisphere of Earth. (2) This is equivalent to that same intensity applied on the flat surface of a projected-shadow of the Earth sphere, which is the area of a disk with Earth’s radius.. (3) Now figure the surface area of the Earth SPHERE, put this in the denominator of a fraction that has the surface area of the Earth DISK in the numerator, and carry out the division to arrive at the ratio of the Earth-DISK area to the Earth-SPHERE area. (4) Multiply the result by total mass of the coronal mass ejection to give you the average global distribution of global coronal mass ejection flux. (6) Relax, no problem, because the resulting average destructive flux is really quite small.

    And using this simple model, what did we learn? — We should NOT have relaxed, because, apparently a coronal mass ejection with the average intensity we calculated as the global average flux DID, in fact, wipe out the power grid of one hemisphere, at least.

    … very brilliant. .. very sophisticated. But remember, “simple models are used in any classroom … it is how we learn.”

  123. Edited your above comment for formatting.

    Yes…what an idiotic, stupid justification, with such idiotic condescending tone. It’s called averaging is it, you disgusting idiots? Is the average of the Earth flat? Morons? Is the average that in a given second (look at the units, idiots: W/m^2 = J/s/m^2 – see the per-second, idiots!?) sunshine falls over the entire surface of the planet?

    Great analogy with the solar flare. Yep, nothing to worry about because the solar flare wind is 4-times less than what it actually is because we averaged it out by spreading the impact over the entire surface.

    They should try laying on a bed of nails with 4 times less nails.

  124. F*ck these people are such disgusting, goblin, sickening gross slimy idiots. You ever met a group of people so damned slimy and greasy, such disgusting filthy lying idiots?

    I had always asked early on: Is it stupidity, or malice? Or is stupidity the same thing as malice?

    It’s malice, no matter if stupidity is the victim. It’s malice, and must be treated as such. It’s malice, and the stupidity of it must no longer be tolerated for its pitifulness. It is time to stop tolerating the intolerance of malicious stupidity and stupid malice.

    May they be destroyed.

  125. … messed up my blockquote, which should have ended at the word, “learn”, before MY commentary began at the word, “Great”. Sorry for the stupid typo mistake, JP and others. I’ll try harder, get better, get my act together, get more consistently accurate, etc.

  126. It was such a good comment I logged in to correct it 🙂

  127. Oh, and “Postma”, NOT “Postman” — come on, get it right, I know this! Thanks for the edit. I promise to get better.

  128. They’re disgusting, puss-dripping goblins from Mordor. Covered in their own excrement and vomit filth. With boils and pustules all over their malformed and disfigured faces and bodies. They worship fraud. They unite with indignity. They copulate with the god of untruth, sodomized by it constantly, having its eggs laid in their bodies to then hatch and break out of their skin and orifices as other-worldly unrecognizable spiders and scorpions which are their myriad lies and falsehoods which they then protect as their progeny. Their family.

    Have you ever met something so damned disgusting!? They’re so, so sick. They’re the constant feeling of strep-throat while swallowing dry bread. At all times this is their state. They’re the feeling of nausea mid-stream of vomit. At all times this is their state. And they continue on in this state, constantly.

    They’re SO sick.

  129. Joseph E Postma says:

    Robert…make a graphic of that will you?? lol

  130. Joseph E Postma says:

    With Al Gore, Michael Mann, Anthony Watts, and Chris Monckton (and whoever else) all being variously sodomized by the god of untruth, having lies hatch from their orifices and bodies, vomiting and defecating on themselves and each other, protecting their myriad lies like spiders and snakes and scorpions crawling around on the ground, etc., etc.

  131. Sunsettommy says:

    What is really funny,is that you can destroy their CO2 is going to burn us up narrative, by using their own words against them.
    From John Kehr’s website,shows that is it IMPOSSIBLE for greenhouse warming,even if CO2 does have some warm forcing capabilities.
    The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!
    “If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.
    The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”

  132. Over at WUWT, I jokingly asked the question, “What is the maximum prison sentence for being stupid beyond belief?” … and I think that this is a valid question here too. The issue over there was a less sophisticated form of stupidity.

    Ordinarily, I’m not one to label people or use attacking words, but when it becomes obvious that editorial power is being used to silence, rather than to improve, dialogue, I sometimes wander into the domain of insults, just for fun.

    The thing with the sci-fi (I mean, “skept-sci”) thread under consideration here is that the writer spent the first part of his article trying to discredit the person and the organization of which the person is a part. He went to great, arrogant, snobbish, condescending lengths in his efforts to do this, and then he indirectly insulted readers who ventured past his ad hominem attacks by insinuating that they might not have been smart by reading any further,but, well, okay, since you (the reader) are THAT stupid NOT to believe my ad hominems, let me explain it for your feeble minds and questionable good judgment. [italics indicate the tenor of his tone]

    When a person uses discrediting words as a technique in the first paragraph of an article, then I am automatically suspicious. I pretty much discrediting him/her at this early point, and then my next focus is on proving that I am justified in doing this by dismantling his subsequent words. Only idiots start by trying to discredit.

    I love [as a display of mental insufficiency] the way he totally ignored any details of your spherical model of reality, instead clinging to his “flat earth” model, defending the nuances of it, and elevating the status of it using flowery, aggrandizing adjectives, as if this rhetorical flair was somehow supposed to substitute for logic. I mean, I could give a really flowery description of Ptolemy’s model, because, artistically, it IS very pleasing, but I’m not going to reject more enlightened models because they upset my aesthetic sensibilities and habits of thinking.

    He agonized needlessly over emissivity, only to conclude about your paper: So far, it is simple textbook stuff with not much promise.What was the point of this asinine comment? What promise was he looking for? You were just discussing the standard model, which IS “simple textbook stuff”, which was what you clarified in order to critique it. All he did here was try to act like he knew the “simple textbook stuff” better than you, in order to boost his own credibility as a critic, which he failed at doing, because he only showed his lack of depth of knowledge about emissivity, which, as it turned out (even he himself ADMITTED), cancelled out. Hmmm, could that cancelling out possibly have been because YOU actually knew better than HE what you were doing? [nah, … couldn’t be!]

    Oh, and THIS comment is priceless: Postma is simply tackling a non-issue, just as how people criticize the term “greenhouse effect” for not working like a glass greenhouse.

    HE simply made a nonsensical statement by asserting a “non-issue”, … just substituting the words in italics for the words, “I deny that there is any issue at all”. Asserting a “non-issue”, in other words, was his wording for “denying” the issue or “ignoring” the issue altogether, rather than confronting the issue. This is a simple way to resolve an issue — simply AVOID it and then make the accusation that it is a “non-issue”. The fact that an apple is different from an orange is a “NON-ISSUE”, when it comes to writing out the recipe for an apple pie. A good name for a baseball bat is a tennis racquet — a bat, after all is just the handle of the racquet expanded and reshaped a bit without the paddle and strings — we all know that “tennis racquet”, therefore, means the modern baseball bat — criticizing the name is a “non-issue”.

    I could go on, but, hey, that’s enough fun for now.

    I’ll read your blistering characterization of such people again, JP, and maybe try to convert it into some sort of visual. No guarantees, though.

  133. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yep…that’s exactly what they do and how they always do it. It is always like this and always has been. We try to talk about simple fundamental things, and then these are the type of responses we get which avoid the issues entirely.

    Hence my anger and hatred towards these people now. This is all a manufactured scam intended to harm and enslave. And these damned liars and gatekeepers are simply paid to fulfill their roles.

    It’s not accidental anymore. At first, we though that it was stupidity. But it’s not stupidity. They damned well know what they’re doing and they darned well know how to sophize and bullshit and distract from the issues and apply emotional pressure on people to keep them from learning anything.

    They’re sick. All they’re interested in is in being the new leaders, enslavers, of a dumbed-down captured populace.

    Can you imagine how pathetic of a group of people you must be, that your greatest wish is to be in charge of a great mass of stupid & impoverished people? When that’s your greatest wish?! Can you imagine anything more pathetic!? “I want to make these people stupid so that I can be in charge of them.” You want to be in charge of people who you’ve made to be stupid? It’s just so pathetic! Can you imagine a sadder state of mind? Can you imagine a more ridiculous life-purpose? Can you imagine a lower life form than that!? It’s SO sick and sickening. That’s what these watermelon communists want. That’s these communist’s highest aspiration – is to be in charge of pathetically dumbed-down people so that they can then tell them what to do and how to live. They’re obsessed with ruling for the sake of ruling only. They don’t care who they rule, they just want to rule. Like the story of the Fallen Angels who are obsessed with ruling because if they get to do this then it means that they are like the true God, because that’s what the true God does over its creation.

  134. Mark says:

    Down in the pit of Goblin City, sits the Weather Goblin and his Shitty
    Sophistical liars and political friends, who know no bounds of human pity.
    Let them dwell in their contemptible land of shite and puss and everything foul
    For the climate scam will soon be won, and the truth will out for all to hear,
    Oh what a joke the fake hysteria !!

    Laugh at the Goblins the putrid puss filled brain dead maggots. Lol o Lol o Lol

  135. Joseph E Postma says:


  136. AfroPhysics says:

    Goblins’ power is their lack of shame. What normal people find degrading and disgusting, they embrace. They normalize it by pretending it’s for a greater good, but it never is. In the end, they rewrite the history of their mistakes and take full credit for other people’s good works.

  137. Joseph E Postma says:

    It’s a parasitical strategy. Sure, it can work. It’s not necessary. The host needs to realize it and destroy it.

  138. Carl says: is actually a valuable website because it lists in one place 195 reasons why being alarmed about human caused global warming/climate change is a pointless waste of time. All you have to do is read through those reasons and then just ignore skepticalscience’s silly counter-arguments.

  139. … not the one you wanted, but one I was thinking about before you ever mentioned anything.

  140. Joseph E Postma says:

    Hah, yes, quite right Carl.

    Nice one Robert! I like it. Can you put those four people I mentioned face’s on those zombie faces?

    I will post it as an OP at that point!!!!!!!!!!! PSI will carry it too!

    Maybe zoom out just a little bit to show more of the flat Earth model. Expand slightly on the other though cloud with the real Earth.

    Oh man…I sooo want to post it that point! It will be so great! 🙂

  141. Joseph E Postma says:

    Replace Michael Mann with Kevin Trenberth though??!!

  142. Joseph E Postma says:

    And maybe someplace a text link to this blog?

  143. I should say that the capitalists are happy to have an idiot populace too. To whom do you turn, which economic and governmental system, that aren’t happy to simply have an idiot populace?

  144. JP,

    Your pictorial editorial suggestions are good ones, but I’m afraid executing them is beyond my current limitations with that image. Such a developed transformation would require a more advanced level of photo editing kung fu than I have. (^_^)

    Also, I’m not to the point of memorializing specific people. Consider it a rough draft, maybe, an idea that somebody else might want to develop further. I’m not married to it, and so anybody who wants to take the idea and run with it is welcome to do so.

  145. Joseph E Postma says:

    No worries Robert! Image editing like you’re doing is not my skill set so I didn’t know what you could do. I could try it myself…I assume I can take a picture of their face from the internet, scale it and copy it over the zombie faces in MS Paint or something.

    Thanks for the images so far! They’re great as they are 🙂

  146. And there’s the copyright thing. If I were parodying the Walking Dead TV series, then I think incorporating the zombie image from that series would fall into fair use.

    I risked it here anyway, out of such a context, and I’m not sure whether this technically is a copyright violation or not. Zap it, if anybody associated with the producers of that show might miraculously come upon this website, see the image, and complain.

    Also, publicity rights with actual photos of actual people can get into some sticky legal crap. Dr. Mann would probably jump on any lawsuit opportunity related to this, I gather, from his earlier habits of suing people who he thinks are slandering him (not that his criticisms are undeserved, mind you, but the law protects idiots too). Cartoons or original cartoon drawings made in parody, however, would be a different story, but beyond my skill level or practice level.

    ’tis a shame that so much legal research might be required to safely bash somebody’s high regard for themselves.

  147. Okay, here’s a slightly different take — more in tune to hard-core alarmists, rather than timid lukewarmers — not so much brain dead as turned into faith zombies:

    … and since I have added a few additional visual elements, plus the intent is non-commercial and presented in the spirit of public information in a new context, … a fair-use claim does not seem like an extraordinary claim to justify it legally.

    … visually cleaner, in some ways, less thrown-together looking than the other one, plus hopefully a funny verbal message.

  148. AfroPhysics says:

    Is there a way to figure out the temperature equivalent of all absorption bands of co2? Or is that a meaningless question?

  149. I’m certainly not the expert, but I would say that it is a well-intended but meaningless question, AP.
    It will be interesting to see how the pros here might respond to this.

    I can’t see how one molecule could have a temperature, let alone one of its absorption bands having a temperature.

    Maybe there’s a temperature associated with ALL the molecules of CO2 at a certain atmospheric concentration, … a way to break down the energy of this whole atmospheric concentration by wavelengths, and then get some kind of temperature equivalent from these, but I just don’t know.

  150. @AP – the question isn’t meaningful. You may mean something else, but the sentence as it is doesn’t have meaning to me.


  151. AfroPhysics says:

    Are oceans net emitters or absorbers of co2?

  152. AfroPhysics says:

    I want to know the exact contribution to global average temperature of 410 ppm co2 vs. 0 ppm co2. As in the molecules disappear. I’ve seen two different results with no steps shown. They are 0.01C (base troposphere), 0.03C (upper troposphere), 0.0013C. These came from hydrostatic adiabatic equations and known heat capacities. I want the exact answer number and derivation.

    I don’t believe in that logarithmic diagram of co2 vs. temp used by lukewarmers and IPCC.

  153. AfroP,

    I’m thinking that “global average temperature” is such a nebulous concept that figuring the effect of a change in atmospheric-gas-concentration radiation might be as equally a meaningless exercise as asking the question about temperature associated with individual absorption bands.

    The troposphere is all one layer of a THICK volume of atmosphere. Why are we so focused on an area one meter from the ground and one meter, say, from the stratosphere? Why not focus on the whole 7 or 8 kilometer thickness, rather than the 1 meter thickness? The choice of focus at 1 METER from surface seems pretty arbitrary to me.

    What is the effect of 410 vs 0 ppm CO2 on the 7 or 8 kilometer layer of the atmosphere?

  154. Hi Joseph,

    I was having an argument concerning the radiative heat flow equation with several people on Spencer’s blog. Someone stated that the presence of the planets makes the sun burn hotter because less energy is leaving the sun. (huh? I assume they are saying Q from the sun is less because of the T1 term of the planets?)

    I said the planets can’t heat the sun per the Second Law. Then I said, what if you had an identical sun adjacent to our sun, there would be no heat flow between the two suns per the radiative heat flow equation (If T1 = T2, Q=0), so why would you expect a monumentally cooler planet to warm the sun?

    Well then Tim Folkerts, a person you have butted heads with here, piped in and said two black bodies at the same temperature adjacent to each other will warm up, and gave the following calculation:

    “To isolate out the basic physics, consider a simple situation. You have a flat panel heater — 1 m^2 and 2000 W (1000 W/^2 on each side). It is in the middle of no where in outer space, so it is radiating out to the 3K background of space. The surfaces have an emissivity of 1.

    The surface temperature will be (1000/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 364 K

    Now put another identical panel right in front of it. The two surfaces that face each other will not lose any radiation (since the other panel is the same temperature). So the remaining outer faces much each radiate 2000 W/m^2 each to shed the 4000W total.

    The surface temperature will be (2000/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 433 K = 70 K warmer than before!”

    .I mean how can one side of a thin black body stop emitting EMR? This seems similar to the Anthony Watts two adjacent light bulbs burning brighter fiasco.

  155. @skepticgonewild 2017/09/15 at 1:26 am

    Yes Tim Folkers is a master sophist. Or just an idiot that can’t distinguish between scenarios. In his example with two powered heaters, is that really the same thing as ONE powered heater and another passive object? Because the latter is how it is with the Sun, the Earth, and the supposed RGHE. The Earth is not a power source. When you have raw creation, liberation of raw energy, of course that energy needs to be conserved. So if you have TWO power sources liberating raw energy, all of that energy follows the 1st Law. In the case with a single power source and a secondary passive object, the passive object isn’t liberating any new energy and the only conservation applies to the energy coming from the single power source. Again, the 2nd passive object isn’t liberating new energy, but, that it how they treat it. It is a clever trick but it’s either lying or just being stupid.

    So, ol’ Tim’s example doesn’t support the RGHE, and by dissecting it we see an example of someone being an idiot, or a sophist.

    So sure, indeed, if each unit is a 2000 Watt heater, then if you put them together so that only one side of them can emit energy, then each side must become warmer to emit what they need to. Because they’re each a power source, liberating raw energy. This is why Anthony’s two adjacent lightbulbs has nothing to do with the RGHE.

    They’re ham-fisted minds – ham-minded. I like the term ham-fisted because it indicates someone clumsy and handling something which they think they can carry but it actually beyond their ability to handle well. They’re ham-minded. They think they have an ability to use words like “W/m^2”, “heaters”, “radiates”, “surface temperature”, but they’re ham-minded clumsy idiots who lack any form of precision or delicateness with the concepts they’re trying to handle.

    A passive Earth by a Sun is not like another Sun by the Sun. A passive object by a heater is not like two heaters beside each other. A single power source is not like two power sources emitting twice the power! That’s how bad these guys are violating thermodynamics – they’re violating the 1st Law, making a single power source the same thing as two power sources emitting twice the power! Just multiplying the power by two, and imagining 2 = 1. Ham-minded idiots.

    Anyway this example is a common one and it is Tim’s favorite. And a few other of them too. They love it because they can quietly slip two power sources in for one, and hope that you don’t notice the difference. Tricky scummy bastards.

    You are correct that no heat flows between two identical Suns. However in this case the 1st Law is of course still relevant and there are TWO power sources liberating raw energy. So I do think that the Suns would warm compared to being alone, as with the two heaters. Not because of heat flow (which is zero), but because of the 1st Law with two power sources, and the sources cannot freely lose energy in some steradian angle direction because there’s an identical power source also liberating new raw energy in that direction.

    And that is a situation 100% different than a single power source with a passive object nearby. In this case, the power source’s energy transfers as heat to the passive object until equilibrium is reached for the passive object, at which point heat flow is zero, and then at that point all of the energy which the power source emits in the steradian angle direction of the passive object is emitted by the passive object, and hence energy is conserved. It doesn’t matter the shape of the passive object. And it doesn’t matter that the passive object emits its thermal radiant energy in all directions including back towards the power source; the energy it emits toward the power source is already accounted for in determining its equilibrium with the power source, and the 2nd Law applies here.

    So that’s the solution to Tim’s and others’ sophistry with this example. It’s tricky clever of them. But you can still laugh at them, because they’re making 2 = 1! Two power sources are not equal to one power source…idiots!

  156. “Two power sources are not equal to one power source”

    What the difference? The difference is twice the energy, that simple. The difference is 2 != 1. A power source is emitting energy liberated from some chemical or nuclear reaction, etc. This is NEW energy being liberated as raw radiant energy which was previously stored as some form of binding energy. The passive object isn’t doing that. The only energy the passive object has is the energy which comes from the power source, and, this energy is downstream of the power source and hence the usual 2nd Law rules apply; the energy can’t do any further heating that what it has already done, and, it especially can’t “go back” to heat the power source from which it originated. The basic reason being energy frequency population states, etc. Also, the energy from the passive object which may be emitted in the direction of the source doesn’t require the source to warm up, because ultimately the source’s energy is transmitted through the passive object after the passive object also stores some of it. With two identical sources, neither source can store and transmit the new raw energy from the other.

    The situations are totally different. The differences are why coal engines were never built with backradiators to make them more efficient than the energy which the coal produces in the first place as it liberates stored chemical energy.

  157. You would add more coal to make the engine more powerful, not more passive objects around the coal!!!

    Can’t get more simple than that!

  158. Carl says:

    “Someone stated that the presence of the planets makes the sun burn hotter because less energy is leaving the sun.”

    Within the imagination anything and everything is possible. The purpose of the scientific method is to differentiate between beliefs that are purely imaginary and beliefs that are in sync with physical reality. Most “scientists” once believed that the Earth was the center of Universe. Scientific observation falsified that belief.

    The notion that the presence of planets cause the sun to burn hotter cannot be tested using the scientific method; it cannot therefore be falsified using the scientific method; it is therefore called “pseudoscience”. Unfortunately, history has shown that human beings have penchant for believing things that are mere pseudoscience. Within the imagination anything and everything is possible.

  159. Pingback: The New Three-sided Climate Debate: A User Guide | Principia Scientific International

  160. You have a flat panel heater — 1 m^2 and 2000 W (1000 W/^2 on each side).


    How thick is the panel ? If no thickness, then both sides are the same “side”, and the power is double what he claims, which would be 2000 W/m^2 [by the way, either he or you, in transposing his words, left out the “m”]

    If a thickness was involved, then how is the energy generated — using what mechanism?, and how does energy loss occur through the given mechanism and components of the system that generates the energy? This would be a REAL experiment subject to more complicated considerations, and so I’m thinking, for his thought experiment, his heaters’ thicknesses are 0. Consequently, I call bullshit on his neatly dividing the power by two and assigning half power to each side.

    On a zero-thickness “heater”, 1 m^2, without any reference to thickness or real-world heating mechanisms, BOTH sides of the surface are infinitely close together, meaning the “two” surfaces are the SAME surface viewed from two different vantage points 180 degrees apart.

    In other words, I do not see a proper set up of a thought experiment that could lead to any conclusions at all. He sets up a visualization that he uses to hide an infinity that conceals a truth. I don’t think that he KNOWS that he is doing this, but this is what I am seeing.

  161. Joseph,
    If I understand you correctly, the situation with earth and the sun is you have one power source, the sun. So the earth could not send energy to heat the sun, per Second Law), and there would be a First Law violation as well because the sun, if heated by the earth, would be at a new and higher energy state, which it can’t be, since the sun is the only energy source, correct? However a two power source situation is different, but does not relate to our earth-atmosphere-sun relationship anyway.

  162. Carl says:

    The thing known as the “thought experiment” is, in reality, just thought; there is no “experiment”. Within the scientific method a “thought experiment” is simply called a hypothesis. “I think that if these situations occur than this will happen.”

    Experiment: “a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition”

    An “experiment” occurs when one constructs a way to collect empirical data that either supports or falsifies a hypothesis. If a hypothesis, a “thought experiment” cannot be tested empirically it is called pseudoscience–it has the appearance of science, but it is not science because “science” is a method, a procedure that includes as an essential element the performance of an “experiment” that generates empirical data. Just thinking about something and then scribbling some notes and/or mathematical formulae on a piece of paper that quantifies and explains those thoughts is not “science”. Sadly, a lot of what passes for “science” today surrounding human caused climate change is nothing more than that.

    Problems arise when “thought experiments” are viewed as being actual “science” and are promulgated as being “scientific truth.” GCM computer models, for example, of the global climate are nothing more than sophisticated and expensive “thought experiments.” They are programmed with certain presumptions and lo and behold when the computer model is run those presumptions are confirmed in the output of the computer model. Example, the belief that the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide is 2-6 C is programmed into a computer model and wonder of wonders the output of the computer model shows that the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide is 2-6 C! As such, GCM computer models are pristine examples of the logical fallacy called circular reasoning.

    Another popular “thought experiment” is the notion that if there were no “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere then the surface of the Earth would be the same temperature as the moon. Another popular “thought experiment” is the notion that actual greenhouses are warmer on the inside than on the outside because they trap radiant energy. Another popular “thought experiment” is the notion that the atmosphere functions thermodynamically as though it were a single pane of glass covering a greenhouse. Another popular “thought experiment” is the notion that an increase in “greenhouse gases” causes atmospheric radiation to emanate from higher and higher altitudes. Another popular “thought experiment” is the notion that water vapor feedback is positive. Another popular “thought experiment” is the notion that . . . (insert favorite definition of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis here.)

  163. Yep exactly skepticgonewild!

  164. Yes quite right Carl. Brilliant. This thought experiment concept has allowed every narcissist in love with themselves and their feeble minds to think that they have the power to dictate reality by the sheer genius of their minds. And they do it while using definitions for things which they make up on-the-fly which have nothing to do with reality but only what conclusions they’re aiming to arrive at.

  165. AfroPhysics says:

    Climate psyentist at work:

  166. Hah, about it. lol

  167. Alarmist — I know what a greenhouse is. Earth is like a greenhouse, even though it is not like a greenhouse, and so I believe in a greenhouse effect anyway, where CO2 is causing catastrophic global climate change. Anybody who does not believe what I believe is a denier.

    Lukewarmist — I too know what a greenhouse is. Earth is like a greenhouse, even though it is not like a greenhouse., and so I too believe in a greenhouse effect. CO2 is NOT causing catastrophic climate change. Anybody who does not believe what I believe is either an alarmist or a fringe crackpot.

    Slayer — I operate a greenhouse. I can tell you damn straight that Earth is nowhere near like a greenhouse, and so I just don’t understand why all those fools talk about a Greenhouse effect. CO2 is causing my greenhouse plants to grow big and beautiful, and it has nothing to do with adding heat to Earth. Anybody who does not believe what I believe is brain dead.

    Person on the street — I just got out of jail for selling some of my food stamps for the sixth time, to get money to buy diapers for my baby. I can’t talk with you too long, because i have to catch the next bus to get home before dark, so I can shovel some coal from the bin to fire up the stove tonight — i hear it’s gonna get cold. I think I know what a greenhouse is, but I really don’t have time to worry about it. What global warming?

  168. Joseph E Postma says:

    Good discussion here of what’s going on with science:

  169. The information revolution, with personal computers, mobile devices, virtual online communities, in short, the evolution and transmittal of social consciousness has exploded to the point that humans can inundate themselves with their worries, angst, pessimism, doubt, uncertainty, rebelliousness, activism, sense of self entitlement and self control to the point that they obliterate any sense of a common, shared society.

    Enforcing standards and encouraging disciplined behavior have have become equated to robbing people of “individual freedoms” or advocating practices of prejudice.

    If you expect people to speak proper English, for example, then you are a racist. If you expect people to be on time for work, then you are a dictator. If you expect people to be quiet in a library, then you are a Nazi. Everybody is portrayed as being equal and off limits to being singled out in any way. If a professor complements somebody for a brilliant essay, then the professor is showing favoritism.

    Many people no longer have any sense of accountability for what they do. They just go through motions, deal with outcomes, blame others for discomforts, offer no input other than complaints, and continue in their disjointed, attention-deficient habits. They want to be wowed, entertained, appeased, pleased, satisfied, and comfortable 24/7. THIS is the primary impulse for living. To think and act responsibly and intelligently has become too much of a burden and too suspect or too targeted as politically incorrect.

    What we end up with is this big mish mash of homogenization, where nobody is a hero, nobody is exceptional, and nobody is outstanding except as a winner on some game show or some competition show. To be any of these things in real life is to be too out of sync with the real-life mish mash.

    In the mish mash, truth is not as important as effect and appearance. Logic is not as important as emotional appeal. Rationality is not as important as entertainment value.

    This history of science has never faced anything like this.

  170. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s brilliant Robert. Quite right.

    It’s the society, the spectacle of the Last Man.

    The enemy AI in The Matrix, the Forbin Project, Skynet, etc., is US. WE are the thing operating the internet, and the internet is destroying us. It’s not some foreign or spontaneous AI that took over the internet and then destroys humans – it’s US as the intelligence running the internet which then destroys humans. We’re doing it to ourselves. And the social media platform is the vector for destruction. As in the Matrix, WE are the power source for this system but we’re also the intelligence for this system, and we’re doing it by choice. Only most don’t know that they have a choice and in this way are enslaved.

    Get off all social media. Get off TV. Get off the smartphone. Get off TV news. It only requires the Choice to stop using yourself to power the system.

  171. Joseph E Postma says:

    Has the internet magnified our best, or our worst?

    I saw one commentator state elsewhere: “The Digital Information Age has been the worst thing to happen to humanity.”

    A small number of people have used it to educate themselves. The majority has used it for utterly useless bullshit.

  172. Has the internet magnified our best, or our worst?

    … depends on the person.

    Overall, though, I’d say as a force on the collective of society, the main momentum of the internet has magnified the collective worst.

    I never have and I never will take a selfie.

    When people used call waiting, I would hang up on somebody who pulled away mid-conversation to answer another call coming in on their phone. I was there first, so I expected (out of courtesy) that they talk to me, and let the person get through when they got through.

    Be. Here. Now. Focus. I loath people who want to be somewhere else, before they are even here in the present engaged.

    I loath people who are not doing their best, because they are waiting for some perfect circumstance to arise where they will feel like doing better. When the hell are you going to practice being your best, if you don’t start now, here, doing what you are doing?

    You don’t just enter a foot race without practicing for it — I’m speaking now of people who are, say, in a job just biding their time, doing things half-ass, because they are not being paid enough, or because they are not happy enough, or because, because, because, …. excuses, excuses, excuses, … and then they die, never having practiced doing their best. They failed, in other words, to nurture fundamental ethics that lead to better circumstances naturally. These people expect to be rewarded greatly, before earning it, as if, magically, the circumstance (NOT the person) causes self betterment.

    The logic seems to be bass akwards — Pay me well, and THEN I will perform well. Give me top grades, and THEN I will do the caliber of work deserving these. Respect me immediately, and THEN I will earn it. Put me in charge, and THEN I will be a leader. Never mind that I have not practiced and perfected any of the skills, behavior, self-discipline, consistency, dedication, persistence, strength, etc. that allows a person to excel. Everybody is equal, and so we are all equal of equal everything right at the start.

  173. The trouble, then, with climate alarm skeptics, is that they have grown up in this type of society, where many different versions of the truth are possible.

    Which version of the truth gets widely accepted is more a function of marketing, using this new power of the internet, which has a power to censor truth in insidious ways that was never possible before. Half truths, marketed properly, are perfectly fine for this society.

  174. These people in fact argue that society and the modern money system is entirely predicated on running on bullshit:

    That this societal and money system couldn’t function at all without bullshit. In fact, it requires more and more bullshit to keep going or grow at all.

  175. RK: “In other words, I do not see a proper set up of a thought experiment that could lead to any conclusions at all. He sets up a visualization that he uses to hide an infinity that conceals a truth. I don’t think that he KNOWS that he is doing this, but this is what I am seeing.”

    Yes you are correct. They always do this. Set up thought experiments that have basic flaws in them in the first place. Then use their “brilliance” to dictate how reality should behave, given the conclusion they desire. Thought experiments provide the greatest degree of self-love for the narcissist…the wonders of their supreme minds get to dictate reality. Idiots.

  176. RK: “The trouble, then, with climate alarm skeptics, is that they have grown up in this type of society, where many different versions of the truth are possible.

    Which version of the truth gets widely accepted is more a function of marketing, using this new power of the internet, which has a power to censor truth in insidious ways that was never possible before. Half truths, marketed properly, are perfectly fine for this society.”

    Hence why they push the utter bullshit of “consensus”. “If that’s what most people and the experts say then it must be true.” Can you imagine a more regressive, idiotic, endarkened, horrible, horrific, stupid, moronic, disgusting, anti-intellectual, anti-reason, uneducated, uninformed, unaware statement than that in the 21st Century? People had stuff like that figured out several thousand years ago. And yet, here will still are, thanks to climate alarm. It’s so horrific it makes me shudder.

    These people must be destroyed.

  177. Is there any greater bullshit than selling debt? … aside from printing paper money without any physical backing, whenever you need it ? Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

    Oh yeah, I forgot, … “carbon credits”.

  178. Joseph E Postma says:

    It’s asking that one needs to be signed in.

  179. Joseph E Postma says:

    “The atmosphere is like an insulating blanket. Compare the temperatures in the sunlight and in the shade on our Moon and on our Earth and you will see how that works.”

    Equating a blanket to the difference between being in sunlight or the shade… False, meaningless…stupid analogy. “A blanket is like the difference between being in sunshine or the shade.” That’s a new one for ridiculous greenhouse effect arguments! A blanket would be like the shade in that a blanket provides shade to things underneath it if it is outside in the sunlight, in which case a blanket cools things, but the last thing that a greenhouse believer wants to say is that ‘the atmosphere like an insulating blanket’ cools things…lol.

    “Your attempted analogy about greenhouse gasses is wrong because they are NOT acting like an insulator, instead acting like a semi-permeable membrane. Water vapor, CO2, methane all let visible light energy from the Sun through, where it heats the rock – converting visible light energy to infrared energy. However, even though these chemicals reflected some of the solar infrared radiation back into space”

    So with increasing GHG’s there would be more energy reflected back into space before it could heat the Earth. Exactly what the OP was talking about! What magic! Less input heat energy, higher temperature! First time in the history of thermodynamics that less heat input meant higher temperature.

    “it also traps this radiation on Earth by reflecting back what would have radiated into space – and the more greenhouse gasses, the more this happens. If you can’t understand such simple concepts, that is truly sad.”

    Do you understand that the heating, the temperature forcing function, is provided by the external input heat energy from the Sun?! And that once this external energy is internally converted to heat, that it can have no more effect on raising the internal temperature of which it is now a part?! No, sorry, you don’t understand basic thermodynamics. lulz

  180. Keep replying Joe, the fish’s are un-aware at this momment that theres a shark in the pool.

    Funny him asking you do you understand light, so hit now with numbers and equations, that will be funny.

    Red light blue light, filters bouncing radiation, guys got it all figured out, as i say funny.

    Now put him in the limelight.

    Dont mock, just destroy him with terminology and equations.

  181. Allen Eltor says:

    The moderator stopped putting my posts up. LOLOLOLOL

    What a hick!

    “Yew kin put yew uh filter between uh light and sensor and if’n yew jist take owt thim red 20% your se nsors cait tayle thair’s less in urgy, thay think it is moar and moar cause thim blue wuns is reel strong! YaW!”

    Ah well, another day, another buncha magic gas barking hicks flown over and lit up.


    Lol I’m out for awhile guys im in a place where ill be without wireless service for a couple of days.

    Peace on you guys
    War on pseudoscience barking hicks.

  182. Allen Eltor says:

    Hey if you guys wanna see a hilarious end to that thread, go in and taunt them with “Why does your high priest refuse to post the scientist’s words repudiating your Church’s FAKE teachings?

    I put up a couple to mike “Magic Filters” Weaver, he won’t have the guts to keep going, he’s got to shut down scientific inquiry into his Church’s fake “Thay dun got moar light comin owt, EVUR time thuh..MAGIC FILTER, makes LESS light GO IN….YaW!”

    We should have a thread Joseph, of just going by and lighting up their pseudoscience huts, I musta rolled a hundred of those therm-o-billy hicks, I grew up watching my parents bust chemistry frauds.

    LooooooL see you guys later,

    Allen Eltor

  183. Allen Eltor says:

    Oh “MAGICAL FILTERS” MIKE WEAVER grew the balls to answer ONE of my posts ridiculing his “MAGIC FILTERS” story.

    Look how he’s claiming my summary of his “Magical filters make objects warmed by less light, warmer than when they’re warmed with more light” story, isn’t exactly what he’s saying.

    Magical insulation mkes sensors detect and depict more light reaching and warming things

    The insulation makes less light reach and warm.

    LooooooL again, what a brainsless hick.

    Guys go ask him ” Where are all the original poster’s comments Mike? And then LoL at him!

    Peace out guys I’m going offline a couple of das, I won’t even be in phone service for like… 3 days so give em hell lol!

  184. “The atmosphere is like an insulating blanket. Compare the temperatures in the sunlight and in the shade on our Moon and on our Earth and you will see how that works.”

    My response would have been: “That’s one freaky blanket, dude, because I have never seen a blanket that is a permeable membrane with a temperature profile that transitions from warm to sub-zero, to zero to sub-sub-zero, to blazing hot, throughout its thickness. How is that even remotely like a blanket that ONLY insulates?

    Moon — temperature in sun really, really hot … temperature in shade really, really cold.
    Earth — temperature in sun, really cool compared to moon … temperature in shade, really warm compared to moon.

    So, a blanket can keep you cool OR warm, which means that it can do more than just insulate. Okay, I did a comparison that I think disproves your basic assumption.

    Earth’s atmosphere REGULATES surface temperature within a range that humans find generally comfortable. On the sunny side, this regulated temperature is COOLER than if the atmosphere were not there. On the dark side, this regulated temperature is WARMER than if the atmosphere were not there. Earth’s atmosphere, thus, accommodates the human body’s sensory definitions of BOTH ‘warm’ and ‘cool’. And so the ‘greenhouse effect’ cannot be just about warming, and if it cannot be just about warming, then it cannot be what everybody says it is, which means it is a fake name for a fake physical mechanism.”

  185. “As the object warms as a result of the bluer light (the light not filtered), it glows with redder light. It radiates away its energy via light, infrared mostly. Let’s say the filter also blocks (reflects) infrared light, as well as the red light. Now, the object’s heat energy isn’t leaving it very well as it is bouncing back from the filter. Will the object still be cooler with the filter?”

    1) Heat doesn’t bounce. Totally unphysical, fake, non-reality concept there. 2) Since the filter is simply an added passive component of the passive system, and is the systems new surface, then the filter becomes the temperature it should given the external input and the emissivity it can radiate at. The object inside is still only *heated* to the temperature at which it is being forced externally. In a coal engine, we don’t add more passive components and filters etc. to make the engine more powerful – we add more coal because this is more input.

    “The answer is “no”. The reason? A photon of blue light has more energy than a photon of red, or infrared, light. It has more punch. One unit of blue light will create more heat than can be radiated by one unit of infrared light. Add into this the fact that the object is no longer able to cool itself as well because radiative cooling via infrared light isn’t working very well, what with the filter bouncing a lot of it back.”

    3) Thermal equilibrium is established when heat flow is zero, and heat flow “Q” is given for a simple geometry like this example by Q = sigma*(T_hot^4 – T_cool^4). Thus, when the passive T_cool object becomes the same temperature at which the input flux can force it to (T_hot), heat flow becomes zero, thermal equilibrium is achieved, and the passive object can not spontaneously and/or by passive means increase in temperature beyond which it is being forced by the external input. If point sources are involved and distances then we can just write Q = F_in – F_out where F are the fluxes from the external forcing input and the passive output, and in this way equilibrium is achieved when the wavelengths are very different but total surface emissions are equal.

    “Of course, in my analogy, the filter are greenhouse gasses and the object is the Earth. Simple experiment. Consider a greenhouse. An actual glassed in greenhouse. Is it warmer inside than outside? Why? Know that glass is opaque to infrared. It reflects it, but it is transparent to bluer light. This is why greenhouses, or hot houses, work to provide warmer environments through solar heating.”

    4) Nice analogy but it is not based in reality. You don’t know how greenhouses work. They work by stopping convection. That’s how they work. They stop the convective replacement of air warmed at the surface by sunlight heating the surface with cooler air falling from above. They STOP convection. They do not get hotter than the solar input. The actual function of a real greenhouse disproves and debunks the *analogous* climate alarm radiative greenhouse effect. An actual greenhouse should get warmer than the solar input and should function in the way claimed here if the radiative greenhouse effect actually existed. But they don’t. A real greenhouse functions by stopping the convective replacement of air warmed from solar heating in contact with the surface, with cooler air falling from above. They also function by the low emissive power of glass which thus requires a higher temperature for a given input. By stopping convection, and thus warming up to a higher temperature since the solar heating itself is capable of heating things to 60-90 degrees C, this demonstrates that the atmosphere including it’s so-called “greenhouse gases” act as a coolant in the open in the day time. At night time both the surface and atmosphere can do nothing but cool, although the added thermal mass of the atmosphere would help to not cool as fast and also given that gases generally have low emissivity. So-called “greenhouse gases” are supposed to be better emitters, have higher emissivity, than the standard atmosphere and so would serve to hasten cooling, not delay it.


    Good god these people are such braindead idiots. They literally have ZERO clue about actual physics, about how thing actually f***ing work…and they proselytize this bullshit with such utter idiotic confidence. I can’t believe how much I hate this sophistry BS. They have NO clue. Whatsoever. What in the hell has done this to people!?

  186. What in the hell has done this to people!?

    … a simple mistake magnified, through slack standards, into a complex series of embedded mistakes, subsequently solidified into educational protocols, used as a foundation to teach children, who expand the errors via modern communication technology, to reinforce the errors through endless repetition, until thought about what is actually being said gets fully replaced by physical reflexes embodied in comfortable habits of thinking, which serve to sustain positions of leadership connected to salaries, reputations, and all manner of social structures that define people’s sense of meaning and place in society.

    The simple mistake becomes an icon, and the icon becomes a means of defining ones life and one’s means of making a living.

  187. Joseph E Postma says:

    A simulacrum. A fake, without a roadmap back to the original.

    If we’re quite clearly seeing this here, it makes you wonder WHAT ELSE has already gone and passed before our time.

  188. The power of faulty-information transmission these days has much, much more force to be overcome than in previous eras. The sheer potential for repeating a message is incredible.
    Speed of repeating the message also is incredible.

    I propose a new equation”

    I = mc2

    “Idiocy = population mass times the speed of internet transmissions squared”

  189. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yes quite right…there are new modern factors which accelerate all this. I like the equation!

  190. “I” in that equation works out to be a really big number. I haven’t calculated the Hiroshima-blow-your-brains-out equivalent yet. The speed and power of information transmission (via computer multiplied by the constantly distracted, attention-deficient users’ consciousness is why “c” is squared. It’s exponential this way, you see.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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