The Alarmist Radiative Greenhouse Effect’s Final End

In the previous two posts (first, second) we have looked at the climate alarmist’s “steel greenhouse” which they mathematically solve in such a way as to lead to what they think is an alarming behaviour about temperature, which they call a radiative greenhouse effect. Well, they should call it a “radiative greenhouse effect”, but they actually only ever call it a “greenhouse effect” thus sowing confusion over how a real greenhouse functions (physical stoppage of convection) vs. how their solution functions (via radiation which can’t be stopped) which is not like an actual greenhouse.  The steel greenhouse is a perfect model for demonstrating the non-existence, the thermodynamic impossibility, of the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm.

In the first post we demonstrated the correct solution which utilizes the complete set of laws of thermodynamics, and this solution quite clearly mathematically proved the non-existence of the alarmist radiative greenhouse effect.  In the second post we examined the alternative climate alarmist solution which we identified only partially uses the law of conservation of energy in such a way that it then ignores the full statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics which is the actual law about conservation of energy.

The alarmist solution invents an alternative accounting of energy flows which treats all energy to behave like heat and thus to be able to raise any object’s temperature no matter the source of the energy.  This is contradictory to the actual statement of the First Law which specifically states that an object can only raise in temperature if it receives heat, where heat is then defined only as the balance difference of energy intensity between two objects, that is, the energy which spontaneously flows from hot to cold, thus disallowing the energy from a cooler body to raise the temperature of a warmer body.  The alarmists go to create this solution because they dispense with the thermodynamic concepts and definitions of heat and specifically of thermodynamic equilibrium, and thus their solution is thermodynamically incomplete and hence does not connect to reality.  Logically, they are thus required to come up with a solution which is impossible, and this we can now immediately mathematically prove.

From the last post in equation 4, the mathematical solution for the temperature of the shell showed that it would be

1) Tsh4 = PspO/4πRsh2σ

So, if the shell had the radius of the sphere, then the solution shows that the shell would have the same temperature of the sphere because the temperature of the sphere by itself is simply

2) Tsp4 = PspO/4πRsp2σ

That is all well and good, and is what you would expect for the shell.  This is the same result in both the alarmist’s solution and the correct solution from the first post.  That is, the temperature of the sphere is given simply by its internal power generation spread over emission from its surface, and if the shell is identical with the surface of the sphere then the shell must equate to the surface of the sphere and hence have the temperature of the sphere.  However, the ontological error of their non-utilization of the complete and proper set of thermodynamic laws is exposed when we look at their solution for the temperature of the sphere (equation 6 from the last post):

3) Tsp4 = (Psp0/4πσ)((Rsp2 + Rsh2)/Rsp2Rsh2)

Let us make the shell radius the same as the sphere radius, i.e., Rsh2 = Rsp2, and then equation 3 becomes

4) Tsp4 = 2PspO/4πRsp2σ

Equation 4 should have been identical to equation 2 since what we’re doing in equations 3 and 4 is the exact same thing as in equations 1 and 2, i.e., making the shell radius the same as the sphere radius. Instead what we have is a contradiction, a paradox, i.e. an impossibility, thus indicating that something has gone fatally wrong – there is a factor of two in equation 4 which should not be there.

At the stage of arriving at the equation 1 above in the previous two posts, everything is OK.  The flaw in the alarmist’s radiative greenhouse effect physics comes in after that, when they develop a solution with a mathematics which does not utilize the definition and concepts and maths of heat flow and thermodynamic equilibrium.  What else can happen but deriving an equation which contradicts and hence disproves itself when the premises going into the solution aren’t based in the mathematical laws of physics and the logic of reality, i.e. the logic of that which can exist?

Remember, this is their solution, their mathematics which they create by ignoring the definition and equations for heat flow and thermodynamic equilibrium, their result, and their own paradox which exposes their radiative greenhouse effect scheme as false.

It is finished.  And they are finished.



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

146 Responses to The Alarmist Radiative Greenhouse Effect’s Final End

  1. ilma630 says:

    Until someone manages to get one of these crooks, eg Gore Mann, Hanson, Schmidt, etc. into a court, under oath, and have them fail to contradict this, ie agree, then they will ignore this and continue, as the political tide is very strong.

  2. Thanks Joe, BRILLIANT reasoning which confirms what Hertzberg, Siddons and I wrote earlier this year in two peer reviewed papers: and

  3. In the face of such basic mathematical treatment, I predict that the typical response of “greenhouse theory” proponents will be to say that this is all math trickery — theoretical bullshit, and then they will divert the focus into some other direction that does NOT involve math, such as a particularly strong hurricane, or a particularly sparse arctic sea-ice season, as they try to prove a generality using a very isolated specific. Business (i.e., self delusion) as usual for many, I’m afraid. But maybe a few more will wake up, … which would be a little progress, I guess.

  4. Now about “peer review”. Some people give this validity, only when THEIR peers are the ones reviewing.

    Ever notice that the initials of “peer review” and “public relations” are the same? — PR

    I think, in some cases, we should call it “PC review” — “PC” for “Politically Correct”

  5. I would really like to see Eli work out the answer himself.

    And I’d really like to find Willis and give him an earful for just blatantly violating conservation of energy and calling it a rounding error…

  6. At least the claimed error involves the idea of “round” and not “flat”, or maybe not — it IS a sort of “flattening error” too, I guess. The error, in its rounding, thus, flattens. (^_^)

  7. Just for clarity, our papers mentioned above demolish the idea that there is an atmospheric “greenhouse effect” and demolish the idea that any warming at all is possible off atmospheric carbon dioxide. As per Joe’s extensive work, any and all claims by catastrophic global warming/climate change “scientists” are 180 degrees off reality.

  8. Unfortunately, demolition is easily countered by delusion, until some practical application forces the deluded to hit a brick wall of consequences. For example, many people would have to face, head on, the failure of the Paris Agreement fully executed, before they started to question its underlying premises. And even then, there would be stages of further denial trying to reconcile why reality was not changing, … possibly to the point of collapsing key segments of civilization, causing civilization to fall, killing off a large proportion of people, … to leave a clean slate for others to rebuild on a different foundation of beliefs.

    Otherwise, the process of unfolding the truth will continue very slowly at a snail’s pace, driven by competing forces of finances and politics, in a struggle between opposing sides, where whoever has the most money and influence wins big, while the less financially and politically powered souls endure the idiocy of powerful wealthy deluded people.

    Physics, thus, succumbs to politics and fiscal forces, where the truth does not set you free.

    Yeah, that’s a bleak outlook, but that’s where I am on this today. A strong faction of truth seekers, then, might be the best hope, rather than thinking that a paradigm change is possible in our lifetimes or even in multiple lifetimes. Truth seeking has to become the counter-religion to oppose the religion of human-caused-CO2 climate change, and the resultant opposition becomes the way of life.

    Changing a religious mind set, in other words, is near impossible. The best you can do is stick to your own guns and be prepared to justify your beliefs.

  9. A comment I get from the alarmists is CO2 absorbs IR, then re-emits it back to the surface. Those IR photons hitting the surface would raise the surface’s temperature, even though that surface has a higher temp than the CO2. I try to explain it is like pissing into fast flowing river, but they still think CO2 is imparting energy to the surface. What would your response be to this?

  10. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s what this blog and our effort has been all about. What you describe is the fundamental, sole foundation for all of alarmism, and it is called the “radiative greenhouse effect” or RGHE. Your own rebuttal is correct, and is what it amounts to. Nevertheless, there has been an ongoing battle of the sophists on the alarmist side and real science on our side, with each side attempting to find the argument strategy that finally destroys the other side. The alarmists use sophistry and redefinition of terms, etc., while we use logic and mathematics and most especially the laws of thermodynamics. Their strategy rests on the attempt to redefine heat in such a way that the 2nd law no longer applies to it, and they do this by claiming that ANY emission at all is heat, including that from the cold atmosphere, and therefore if the atmosphere emits energy it must heat the surface since all energy will heat. When that argument fails, then they switch to saying that the radiation from the atmosphere “slows down” emission from the surface, thus requiring the surface to get warmer.

    An important thing to distinguish is between light and matter – matter does indeed build up, but light only has an effect dependent upon its frequency and so as in the photoelectric effect one can have much much more “red” light, but it has no effect on the metal until “blue” light comes in. Radiant heat flow and heat flow in general is much like this. Lower frequency energy from a cold source cannot increase the frequencies of a warmer object, etc. As someone said in another comment:

    “Would the concept of vibration help the discussion? Are not the molecules of warm and cool vibrating, one faster then the other. The radiation from the slower vibrating cool object is not going to make the vibration of the faster warmer object molecules vibrate faster.”

    You can also read though the previous two posts and this one to see how the math works out, and how their own math refutes them by contradicting itself.

    Alas, the alarmists don’t care about logic or reason or math. They are sophists and purposefully so. They have an agenda, and it is an agenda of power only, not anything else; having people believe their lies only gives them their sense of power, and so that’s why they keep lying. It is a con, and the number 1 rule of the con is to never give up the con! You think at this point they will admit they were wrong? They never intended to be right so why would they care about being wrong? Their intention is power, no matter the destruction.

    The maths of the steel greenhouse debunks them. A much simpler and shorter argument and demonstration of their maths refuting themselves could be distilled from this and the previous two posts.

    I will be publishing it all soon in review or in a book, etc.

  11. A fast-flowing river is unleashed in front of your face. You piss in it. Pissing IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION of the river’s flow gives the river more energy.

    Those are some mighty strong pubococcygeus muscles that can do this.

    … an even bigger set of balls to assert that this is truth.

  12. Mark Shooter says:

    I like the following thought experiment.
    Take two steel bars, one 50 degrees and the other 100 degrees, place them one on top of each other in a vacuum chamber. As you know, the cooler one will warm and the hotter one will cool till they each reach the same temperature. (Conduction but no convection)
    Now take these bars (back to 50 & 100) and place them an inch apart in the same vacuum chamber. (No conduction or convection) The steel bars will repeat the above outcome but much more slowly this time. (Radiation)
    Now I ask you, is there any chance the 100 degree bar would increase in temperature?

  13. I use the following on the alarmists. A heated pool, 30C, in a room with ambient air CO2. Then up the CO2 to 100% of the air, will the pool’s temp go above 30C? Nope.

  14. Yes those diagrams are called “flat Earth physics” because that’s literally what they are. I have addressed them numerous times.

    One place I discussed it was here:

    Also discussed it in my video presentation and in this unpublished (soon to be published) paper.

  15. nickreality65 says:

    The ONLY^3 reason RGHE theory even exists is to explain how the average surface (1.5 m above ground) temperature of 288 K/15 C (K-T balance 289 K/16 C) minus 255 K/-18C , the average surface (now ground) temperature w/o an atmosphere (Which is just completely BOGUS!) equals 33 C warmer w/ than w/o atmosphere.
    That Δ33 C notion is absolute rubbish and when it flies into the nearest dumpster it hauls RGHE “theory” in right behind it.
    The sooner that is realized and accepted the sooner all of us will have to find something better to do with our time and the taxpayers’ money. Maybe that’s what keeps RGHE staggering down the road.
    The genesis of RGHE theory is the incorrect notion that the atmosphere warms the surface (and that is NOT the ground). Explaining the mechanism behind this erroneous notion demands some truly contorted physics, thermo and heat transfer, i.e. energy out of nowhere, cold to hot w/o work, perpetual motion.
    Is space cold or hot? There are no molecules in space so our common definitions of hot/cold/heat/energy don’t apply.
    The temperatures of objects in space, e.g. the Earth, Moon, space station, Mars, Venus, etc. are determined by the radiation flowing past them. In the case of the Earth, the solar irradiance of 1,368 W/m^2 has a Stefan Boltzmann black body equilibrium temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. That’s hot. Sort of.
    But an object’s albedo reflects away some of that energy and reduces that temperature.
    The Earth’s albedo reflects away about 30% of the Sun’s 1,368 W/m^2 energy leaving 70% or 958 W/m^2 to “warm” the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S-B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394-361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.
    The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.
    Bring science, I did. (5,700 views and zero rebuttals.)—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

  16. Thx, I have seen those, but the new paper.

  17. Another argument they use is to say that CO2 is like a coat, which makes you warmer. But they got that wrong too, it doesn’t make you warmer, a coat just reduces the rate of heat loss. The coat KEEPS you warm, it doesn’t MAKE you warm.

    It’s a glass half full/half empty argument. I lay an explanation here:

  18. AfroPhysics says:

    When they tell you co2 is like a blanket and a blanket keeps you warm, just ask them how warm does it make you? 100.6°F, 105.6°F, or 110.6°F. Same question for multiple blankets.

    That should shut them up. Sophistry is hard to argue rationally, attitude helps.

  19. Thanks guys, this is great what you are all doing for science. I’m hoping this will eventually pay off and AGW will go down in history as the largest fraud ever. But a lot of people making a lot of money stand in the way of that happening soon. Keep up the great work!

  20. Gary Ashe says:

    ”Another argument they use is to say that CO2 is like a coat, which makes you warmer. But they got that wrong too, it doesn’t make you warmer, a coat just reduces the rate of heat loss. The coat KEEPS you warm, it doesn’t MAKE you warm.”

    I asked my 12 yr old niece whilst baby sitting last weekend this question. just out of the blue.

    ”Does a blanket make you warm or keep you warm Ellie”
    ”Keeps you warm” she replied……….without hesitation.

  21. Joseph,

    The year of the date on your paper is 1017, which you might have already noticed by the time this post goes up.

    And you know how a sophist deals with innocent typos – by assassinating a person’s character for typing “1” instead of “2”, while boasting about their own character for saying that the thickness of Earth’s atmosphere is a “rounding error”, when doing calculations involving spherical radii.

  22. J. Richard W., and JP,

    That Trenberth diagram is fine, as far as it goes. To be fully applicable to the modern era, however, it needs a slight addition, in order to put it into the proper context. I have made this much needed addition, and I invite all who use the original diagram to now use this updated version:

  23. Seriously though,

    That diagram is labelled as Global Energy Flows Wm^2.

    But even the <Wm^2 part is wrong, isn’t it, IF we are talking about ENERGY … FLOW.

    Isn’t FLOW a measure per unit time of a volume?

  24. In other words, the physical meaning of “m^2” seems to get lost over all the different surface areas, and so what would be the proof that this meaning is preserved over all those different surface areas?

  25. I know that Watts has a time unit in it, but the time unit seems to get distorted from its original meaning too, … by the “m^2”.

  26. Yes, Watts is Joules per second. Essentially that graphic is saying the sun is shining on the surface the same as two 100Watt lamps over each square meter. Sounds rather on the low side to me, or is that because they have taken an “average” over the whole earth including at night & winter? If so this is one of the reasons that graphic is pure BS. Averages dont tell you what is physically going on. Such as the claim the global average temp is going up, the “warming”. Yet you can have an increase in an average when the lower numbers are higher, and even with the higher numbers going down, as long as the lower numbers go up more than the higher go down. Thus the “warming” is actually because winters are shorter and less cold. Tmax. in Canada at least, is going down since the 1930s.

    What we need to counter that graphic is a more realistic one. I have yet to see a good one that accurately displays what is physically going on.

  27. I suspect that a graphic that better depicted what is physically going on would have a few question marks on it.

  28. I’m involved in the political side of things up here in Canada, the conservatives. I have many times asked MPs to publicly make a proclamation that AGW theory has serious problems. I cited that when ever AGW comes up in the press there are far more comments by the public against AGW than for it, and those who are against it have rational well thought out rebuttals including links such as this. But not one of those MPs will even touch this topic publicly. Too afraid to be labeled a “denier”. We need to continue to pressure these politicians and show them how to counter the AGW cultist’s BS.

  29. AfroPhysics says:

    Joseph, I was hoping you’d get to debunking this assclown:

    Just a friendly reminder from Afro, now in Missississipi.

  30. AfroPhysics says:

    Erhum, Mississippi. lol.
    Same latitude as Arizona, but it doesn’t get as hot. Must be all that cooling water vapor. GHG theory is dead. Long live physics.

  31. The people who make policies and who sustain official movements, unfortunately, are often innocent victims of scammers who have gained positions of power, where information distribution is concerned. Their emotions have been teased to highly active intensities that override any appeals to logic. The scammers have hooked these victims, and the sheer momentum of the large flow of scammer information keeps the victims charged, .. for what they think is a good cause. The good, however, is solidified by the emotional charge, NOT by the logic.

    This is a tough gig to deal with. How do you break the emotional grip of the scammers?

  32. Just yesterday, I was pondering the question, “How would I even begin to write a letter to the governor of my state that might convince her to reexamine her commitment to the United States Climate Alliance?” I consider such a commitment as an embarrassment to intelligent people who might live here. Emotional commitments are so difficult to budge, once they are established into a set of physical, daily habits.

  33. AfroP,

    I would show the guys at Skeptical Science the same consideration that they show JP, as follows:

    John Cook and company at the website, Skeptical Science
    pride themselves in having given a fair review of Joseph Postma’s paper, The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect

    Typical of their review of the paper are statements such as, “The claims are of course extraordinary.”

    “Extraordinary” seems like a gross overstatement of Postma’s delivery of convincing facts that overturn the greenhouse theory. Characterizing Postma’s presentation as “extraordinary” further seems like tactical rhetoric designed to give readers the impression of a confident expert, when, in truth, the person critiquing Postma’s paper lacks both justified confidence and relevant expertise.

    Cook and friends follow a rather predictable path in their opening few paragraphs, in trying to convince readers to stop before they even read the details, because, as they allege, the reputations of both Postma and his associates are inferior to the reputations of those whom Cook and friends hold in higher esteem. In other words, the Skeptical Science guys try to assasinate the character of the person they are pretending to critique.

    This, in itself, should throw up a red flag for any truly intelligent person who might want to gain insight into alternative arguments concerning the greenhouse theory. Anytime a critic tries such a tactic so early in a presentation, one has to wonder what is the true motivation for writing the critique — is it to give a balanced review, or is it to bolster a personal bias by trying to recruit others to share this bias, without applying the necessary logic to weigh its merits?

    I would suggest that Cook and company’s opening lines alone should deter readers from trying to ingest the Skeptical Science review and, instead, should encourage readers to click on Postma’s paper first. And realize that if a critic suggests that readers use the critic’s judgement of character as a reason for not even pursuing an alternate path of inquiry, then the critic himself is of questionable character.

  34. In my … 2017/11/13 at 10:20 AM … post, I referred to the governor of my state as a “her”. I was thinking about the MAYOR of my CITY, who is, in fact, female. The comments still apply to the governor too (a male), but the mayor of my city is also on board with the United States Climate Alliance — a further embarrassment to intelligent people.

    This “alliance” is a knee-jerk reaction to Trump’s now-old announcement about the USA withdrawal from the Paris Accord. Basically, fourteen states allied themselves to continue working towards the goals of that ill-conceived Accord. I cannot begin to describe the confusions in all this — the conflation of different views, misapplied definitions, mislabeling of substances, delusions about renewable energy — very scary.

  35. AfroP,

    In case you missed it (I just found it for the first time), JP’s debunking of the Skeptical [Non]Science Website article was done here:

  36. The following passage from the Skeptical “Science” critique of JP’s paper has the most ridiculous implication:

    Skeptical Science: “Postma then goes on to describe fictitious “boundary conditions.” In particular, he seems to have serious objections to the averaging of the solar radiative flux over the Earth. In essence, he would prefer we had one sun delivering 1370 W/m2 of energy to the planet, with a day side and a night side, noon and twilight, etc. instead of the simple model where we average 1370/4=342.5 W/m2 over the planet (so that the whole Earth is receiving the appropriate “average” solar radiation).”

    Utterly ridiculous is the suggestion that rational minds OUGHT to accept a simple, grossly distorted model of reality, rather than a model that incorporates the most basic observations about reality. Highly rational people, thus, are at fault for wanting a “simple” model that accounts for the simply UNDENIABLE FACTS that there IS one sun, … there IS a day side and a night side. But no, let us just mush it into an average that ignores all this, because this is the most rationally simple thing to do. Seriously?!

    Skeptical Science guys seem to have serious objections to the most fundamental requirements of modeling reality. They would prefer we had no clue how stupidity can be dressed up in correct grammar and syntax to appear like proper discourse.

  37. Skeptical Science: “Postma is simply tackling a non-issue, just as how people criticize the term “greenhouse effect” for not working like a glass greenhouse. Postma objects to teaching this simple model because it is not real.”

    Let us, therefore, NOT object to calling jelly made from pears “apple jelly”. Let us NOT object to calling skin burned beyond recognition “a good complexion”. Let us NOT object to calling hamster wheels “combustion engines”. Let’s just choose any word we want, regardless of its understood, functionally derived, long-standing meaning, and apply this word to any situation where we want a label whose sound we prefer. Forget history, forget context, forget new knowledge, forget everything that relates to the rational delineation of this word in its proper context, related to all that has come before to define it.

  38. Joseph E Postma says:

    Great stuff Robert.

    Can you believe that they say these things!!??

    They are literally saying “Postma objects to models not being based in reality.” As if that is evidence against me. Total inversion of reality, words, thought, etc. Disgusting insect goblins.

  39. Okay, one more:

    Skeptical Science: “To summarize so far, Joseph E. Postma did not like a simple model of Earth’s radiative balance where we approximate the Earth as a sphere with uniform solar absorption. Of course, this is never done in climate modeling or in more detailed analyses appropriate for scholarly literature, so it is more an exercise in complaining about undergraduate education than an attempt to correct what he calls a “paradigm” in climatology.”

    Now the Skeptical Science guys are switching focus from the “simple model” that starts the training of minds … to the complex computer models that these simply-modeled minds somehow advance to, in order to produce the grossly distorted predictions of future temperature anomalies. Somehow switching focus from a simple model to a complex model that fails adds little credibility to their line of … “reasoning”.

  40. This type of long-winded display that Skeptical Science produces is yet again a prime example of how words can be fabricated into the appearance of rational thought, via the sheer mechanics of language, where the deeper substance of this language is pure crap.

    The culinary equivalent would be to set a stage of mixing bowls, high-end food blenders, the finest cookware, the best stove, with mood lighting, state-of-the-art sink, etc., … and then begin to use all these resources meticulously in accordance to manufactures’ guidelines, and in accordance to well established cooking practices, … EXCEPT your main ingredient would be horse manure that you just scraped from the pasture.

    You follow all the cooking directions. You proceed as though making a hearty soup, with your vegetables, and homemade chicken stock, imported whole spices that you grind by hand, … BUT your main ingredient is shit. No matter how you try to frame it, organize it, reconstitute it, flavor it, or present it, the final REAL impact is the impact of shit.

    Now some people might be convinced by all the framing and presentation, even to the point of being talked into thinking that what they are consuming tastes good. But other people know the taste of, … well …, I don’t need to spell it out again, … when they taste it.

    Bon Appétit !

  41. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s exactly it. Skilled sophistry. Maximum sophistry.

  42. To review: sophistry = reasoning by clever but fallacious arguments

    The fallacious character of the Skeptical Science critique lies in the article’s implied assumption that a simple model — even simple to the point of defying fundamental perceptions of reality — is an adequate model, as long as a consistent narrative can showcase it.

  43. Joseph, I have an excellent example of why averaging things, such as the energy input/output, is completely meaningless.

    Take a photograph of anything, some mountain view for example. Then add up every pixel’s colour number, and divide by the number of pixels. Apply that average to every pixel and what do you get? A flat grey image of nothing. This is what the flat earthers are doing.

  44. Exactly! Spot on.

  45. AfroPhysics says:

    Good stuff, Robert. All true.

    But you see, the whole point of debunking it is to never have to debunk it again.

    Thanks for the link. The next time some asshat links the skepsci article, I will send them your link; although JP does not debunk every piece of it, such as the shifting vs. rotating lapse rate.

    I love this blog. I disappear for two days, and Robert smashes skepsci to pieces.

  46. Here’s my go at the Sleazy Science lapse-rate thing (correct me if I’m not quite right):

    Lapse Rate Confusion

    He claims that observations of the atmospheric lapse rate (the rate at which temperature declines with height) disallow the greenhouse effect. His reasoning is that the atmosphere is at a fixed height.

    Actually, I believe that his characterization of the atmosphere is one of fixed DEPTH.

    When greenhouse gases warm the surface, and cool the upper atmosphere, that height still remains fixed, but obviously the temperature difference between the bottom and top of the atmosphere must increase.

    This assumes, of course, that greenhouse gases do warm the surface. For the sake of constructive argument, okay, let’s assume that this is true.

    Postma then claims that this necessarily implies that the lapse rate must have a greater slope than the theoretical value that he derived of about -10 K per kilometer (which is about right for a dry air parcel ascending). That is, if the atmospheric height remains fixed, and the temperature difference between bottom and top is increased, then the rate at which air cools with height must increase. Since this is not observed, then we have a problem, right?

    This is NOT observed. Right.

    In actuality, the atmospheric height is a distraction. The adiabatic lapse rate does not extend beyond the point where convection breaks down, which is the tropopause. The whole point of the greenhouse effect is that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases does increase the “average” height at which emission to space takes place (and the tropopause increases in height too), so one IS allowed to extrapolate further down the adiabat to reach a higher surface temperature.

    Again, I believe Postma’s term was “depth”, NOT “height”, and I believe that he was referring MASS of the atmosphere, … and actual “depth” within this actual mass. Talking about average height of emission is a DIFFERENT “height” that the Skeptical Science guys now bring up to make a point, even though they say that “atmospheric height is a distraction”.

    Apparently, average “height” of emission is NOT a distraction, even though Skeptical Science brings it into an argument to distract from the distinction between actual depth in actual mass and imaginary “height” in mathematical conception. Skeptical Science is confusing distinct lines of argument, thereby conflating terms (or implying such conflation) that should not be conflated. THEY are the ones doing the distracting. Also, they are deflecting attention to “the point where convection breaks down”, which really is not necessary to bring into the discussion — it just serves to parade terminology and to suggest expertise [Oh wow, these guys really know their stuff. … NOT !]

    If the “greenhouse effect” increases average “height” at which emission to space
    takes place, then the “greenhouse effect” also increases average SURFACE AREA from which emission to space takes place. If they acknowledge the significance of the “height” increase, which is the radius increase with respect to the globe, then they MUST acknowledge the significance of the surface-area increase that this “height”/radius increase causes. More average surface area would now radiate to space.

    By merely extrapolating down, while ignoring this surface-area increase, they defy mathematical and physical logic by preventing a sphere of increasing radius from increasing in surface area. They would say that the surface-area increase is insignificant, at which point I would say that the “height” increase leading to the “insignificant” surface area increase would also appear to be insignificant. Otherwise, we would have an insignificant surface-area increase produced by a significant “height”/radius-increase.

    One dimension of reality must be more significant than another. I suppose that thought habits in other areas of science might contribute to this seeming contradiction. After all, am I not correct in believing that string theory operates on the idea of entities that have extension without thickness? .. or that atomic physics conceives of particles that have zero sensible mass? In the micro-world this somehow seems workable, but in the macro-world, it somehow seems even more absurd.

  47. Joseph E Postma says:

    They’re not trying to do science or physics…they’re just sophists looking to make an appearance.

    If the lapse rate is fully explained by the equation with gravity and thermal capacity, but the RGHE claims responsibility for the RGHE, then the RGHE is debunked because what it is supposed to explain is already explained by other physics.

    Then, acknowledging the physics which explains the lapse rate, then if there are other factors which would change the lapse rate they should then be observed by a modulation in the lapse rate, but they’re not, and the lapse rate is ONLY that which is already explained by the other physics.

    Not only that, but when the strongest so-called “greenhouse gas” is present, i.e. water vapour, the lapse rate is still that calculated from the other existing physics of gravity and thermal capacity.

  48. Joseph E Postma says:

    And, when water vapour is present, it *lowers* the lapse rate, whereas if the RGHE were real it would have increased the lapse rate.

  49. AfroPhysics says:

    I was referring to this diagram:

    First he mislabels your tropopause as “top of the atmosphere” to make you look like a fool, while his version goes into the stratosphere.

    Of course I know you’re right.

    Their shifting lapse rate curve is disgusting and obscene.

  50. Greater height of emission would mean more area from which to emit, thus no reason to extrapolate down, because a compensatory amount of radiation would follow from the INCREASE in average emission-height SURFACE AREA. And if you say that my surface-area increase is insignificant, then I ask you to justify how your height/radius increase is not thereby also reduced to insignificance. How can one dimension of physical, sensible reality (and its effect) be more significant than another dimension of physical, sensible reality (and ITS effect)?

  51. … sort of like a boiling water bubble, even if you entertained the claimed mechanism.

  52. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Greater height of emission would mean more area from which to emit”

    That’s a good point. More area emitting at the same temperature means more energy being emitted which requires more energy input…but…there’s no more energy input since the sun is constant, and they’re pulling a Willis Eschenbach!

    This is why the tropospheric hot-spot was never found. Because if it could have ever existed it would have violated the law of conservation of energy…which means it could never have existed hence could never be found.

    This is a nice tie-up up their emission height argument Robert, thanks. After all this time never thought about it because of dealing with other arguments. But with our refresh of the Willis debacle violating energy conservation with his “rounding errors”, it applies directly to their emission height argument. Just as with Willis, if the same temperature is emitting over a larger surface area, then more total energy is being emitted which therefore requires more input to match…but there is no more input. The scheme is false.

  53. I thought the “more energy being emitted” would be from a COOLER temperature, since the emission height would increase, hence the temperature at that height would DEcrease.

    The argument, as I have understood it, seems to be that emission from a greater height lowers the energy of the emission at this new emission height, which means that more emission at higher temperatures are happening somewhere deeper in the atmosphere and are “held back” , propagated downwards to increase surface temperature. But this seems to ignore the fact that surface area of emission would also increase AT THAT LOWER TEMPERATURE, and the greater surface area over which the lower-temperature emission would occur compensates for the reduction in energy of emission at the new height.

    They try to hold the surface area the same, while increasing the height/radius-of-emission-sphere and lowering the temperature, but, seemingly, the correct way to think would be to increase the height, lower the temperature, and INCREASE the SURFACE AREA of emission at that LOWER TEMPERATURE. No need for extra energy. The surface area increase at the lower temperature of the increased height would seem to hold things in check. Even if you do not add more energy, the idea fails, when all the dimensions of reality are accounted for.

    They are ignoring a major implication of their own model, namely that an increase in area requires an increase in surface area, and an increase in surface area requires an expansion outward/upward of the imaginary emission-height shell, which places the emission shell in a lower-temperature region of the atmosphere but NOW with GREATER SURFACE AREA than before.

    A greater surface area emitting at a now lower temperature would seem to come to equilibrium the same as a smaller surface area emitting at a previously higher temperature, right? They want you to believe that the surface area does NOT change “significantly”, but rather stays the same, so that the SAME surface area emits at a lower temperature.

    But, NO, this would NOT be the case. Rather, a LARGER surface area would now emit at the LOWER temperature. No Stefan-Boltzmann retro-engineering mathemagic can save the premise now.

    … if I’m thinking correctly.

  54. No but see…if the altitude of emission increased but was at a cooler temperature, then nothing actually changed and the near-surface air temperature would still be the same. So we need more than just that the emission height increased and but a lower temperature. Remembers it’s the emission temperature which must remain constant because this is defined by the effective temperature which is determined only by other things which are constant (sun, albedo, distance). You need the previous emission height to become warmer, so that the average emission height corresponding to the effective temperatures increases, so that the bottom-of-atmosphere increases in temperature. So if the height of the emission temperature increased so that the new average emission occurs at a higher altitude, then you have more energy being emitted that isn’t actually provided, etc. Pulling a Willis.

  55. Phil Clark says:

    I cannot imagine why so much effort is expended on attempting to counter the “radiation physics” view of what makes climate tick. Who are you or anyone else trying to impress with that sort of detailed analysis? Forget the nonsense about CO2, greenhouses and radiation. With 70.8% of our planet water and 75% in the Tropics, evaporation, convection, vertical latent heat transfer nicely stabilises our climate, aided by 60 year ups and downs due to solar perturbations.

  56. I think that I see your point, but now I’m thinking that this reveals an even greater plethora of contradictions. Not to confuse things, but I’m really trying to understand this. Here’s what I’m thinking now:

    The emission temperature MUST remain the same, as this defines the EFFECTIVE temperature. So, first, we must get through the first denial by the GHT guys, who say that no “significant” emission-surface-area results from the increased emission height/radius. But the area MUST be significant, if the height/radius is significant. They cannot escape that there is an emission surface-area increase to that imaginary spherical shell whose surface is the defining surface of the “average height of emission”.

    BUT, big BUT, this admission of reality forces the height of emission into a lower temperature, which now seemingly lowers the EFFECTIVE temperature, which seems like a contradiction. Because how could the effective temperature be what it is defined to be, if it now moves to a lower temperature? CONTRADICTION.

    So, give them the delusion of NO emission-surface-area increase, but greater height and lower temperature, which now forces the layer where emission occurs to be located higher up in the atmosphere but lower in temperature, which requires MORE energy from a magical reservoir that does NOT exist to warm the layers below, so that the effective temperature might still be resurrected from those layers below.

    Is this anywhere near correct?

  57. I guess my confusion could be a system of counter-sophistry, … like counter-terrorism.

    … performing sophistry on the sophists.(^_^) … like conning the con.

  58. [to entertain the GHT claims] You need the previous emission height to become warmer, so that the average emission height corresponding to the effective temperatures increases, so that the bottom-of-atmosphere increases in temperature.

    I’m just not seeing why this would require the bottom-of-atmosphere to increase in temperature. It seems like everything would just adjust, layer-by-layer upward, in accord with he new emission altitude (height), … NOT a cascading temperature increase downward, but a cascading, compensatory emission-surface-area expansion upward throughout the entire thickness of the atmospheric mass, to keep equilibrium. No temperature increase at surface, because of an offset by mass adjustment to the increased emission demands.

    Do you like my counter-sophistry?

  59. So if the height of the emission temperature increased so that the new average emission occurs at a higher altitude, then you have more energy being emitted that isn’t actually provided, etc. Pulling a Willis.
    If the new average emission occurred at a higher altitude, would this higher altitude not be at a lower temperature, which would redefine the emission temperature and NOT be the SAME effective temperature anymore? Would it not require continually redefining the effective temperature? — a cyclical fallacy? or continual contradiction?
    Yours truly,
    Count Sophisticus

  60. I’m beginning to think that the whole “effective height of radiation” concept is one big piece of sophistry anyway, and so I won’t spend anymore time trying to dissect faults in its application.

    In and of itself alone, it is faulty to begin with. If sophists can use it to make claims, then I can use it to make counterclaims that contradict by using confusion and conflation to mistakenly conceive of a mathematical fiction as a real physical shell somewhere “up there” in the air.

  61. Allen Eltor says:

    That effing hick Eschenbach has yet another thread at Magic Gas Watts’ place, barking about how
    “the cold gas blocking light to the planet, is making the planet hotter.”
    Government employee Joshua Halpern is over there as ”really skeptical” – at least I think it’s him – bragging about how he knows all about the magical gassiness and how insulation making less light reach a sensor,
    makes the sensor detect and depict more light reaching the sensor,
    every time the insulation
    makes less light reach the sensor.
    I basically cursed out Watts and Eschenbach individually but of course the public won’t ever see it.
    I asked those two effing hicks to finally explain to me – personally – how much more light warms the planet,
    for every percent less light,
    green house gases make reach, and warm the planet.
    I reminded them that Eschenbach is a MASSEUSE with a MASSAGE certificate from the 1970s,
    and that Watts is a college dropout who sells electric cars.

  62. Oh man is that what they are….lol.

  63. Allen Eltor says:

    Yeah, they’re just despicable. Watts is a Democrat posing as a ”California Republican.” You might not be extra savvy about American politics Joseph, but a ”California Republican” is often a derogatory term for government and power worshipping money grabbers who are troubled by the e.n.o.r.m.o.u.s. number of activist Democrats at every, single, political meeting in California.

    They carve out themselves some power, by defecting – and in joining the Republican party, they take their thieving, identity-based politics, where they can sing about ”Me, me, MEEEE!!” and they simply mole away at the Republican party there.

    Ok – Watts, is a Republican leader in the Northern California region around Chico, which is a buncha farmland, and they have a University extension there. They’ve got a whole school and everything, a very classic ”college” town, where the downtown area is hipster coffee bars, and this kinda thing, and the politics in the area – Watts schlepps his way around there, and he’s an electric car salesman.

    Have you ever heard of ”ZEV2G0” vehicles? ZEV stands for ”Zero Emissions Vehicle, and is a government term.

    He sells those things on Ebay. He was selling them when he started his site, Watts Up With That.

    And guess what else he sells, Joseph. * HE MARKETS SOFTWARE THAT PRINTS OUT ALL KINDS OF C.O.L.O.R.F.U.L. SPAGHETTI G.R.A.P.H.S.

    I had gone on to explain more about Watts’ politics and crooked path to full-time scientific fraud,
    barking how the magical gassiness dun

    ”made the sky uh big ol’ heedur, an how – yew noe –

    thim green hows gaisses,
    is the

    magical core,
    of the cold nitrogen bath that’s uh… magical giant heedur.
    In thuh sky. YaW.

    It’s a cold nitrogen bath,
    but… it’s a giant heater.

    And the
    light refractive insulation
    mixed into cold nitrogen bath
    conduction stripping energy from the light-warmed rocky planet surface,
    the light refractive insulation
    stopping 20% of the otherwise available warming firelight from the sun
    from ever even entering Earth’s physical and mathematical systems
    are the magical

    ”HeeDuR Core, YaW!!”

    What a couple of f***g slugs, crawling on scientific discourse leaving those slime trails of fraud, and faked energy handling
    a CHILD can identify.

    I told those two stinking foreskins of fraud, that .their infernal fraud and fakery church

    has them answering the question,

    ”What happens to the temperatures of light-warmed rocks,
    insulation makes 20% less light
    reach and warm?”

    with the answer

    ”If the magical gassiness
    makes the light not never git to the rocks,
    the tim pur chur uv thim rocks
    goes up,
    evur time the magical gassiness,
    makes less light reach em to warm em!”

    I’m just venting guys, I despise f***ng frauds. I despise those two m***rf****rs the way anybody naturally despises a child molester. Because that’s what they are, in a way.

    Steyn was right, Mann, Watts, Eschenbach, Cook: they’re m.a.t.h. m.o.l.e.s.t.e.r.s.

    They’re molesting the minds of children from schools around the world,
    inserting into those minds that – it’s alright to do, and pull off a.n.y. kind of f.r.a.u.d. you can get a.w.a.y. with – as long as you have somebody with some media savvy, to spread filth about the people who catch you,
    and tell you to stop m.o.l.e.s.t.i.n.g. the s.c.i.e.n.c.e.s.
    you have absolutely z.e.r.o. reason to be in.

    When I was a young man, my parents were both business people and government enforcers, on the various local family member fronts, and as a YOUNG boy, in single digits’ ages, I remember older family members sitting around and observing as part of conversation that various MEDICAL SCIENCE people, had retired early or switched specific fields,

    when government employees started pulling the VERY same type chemistry scam over pot.

    Just – make a buncha shit up, and because you pay them to spread the fraud, and they hold the keys to the power of officiating personnel, start putting your political enemies in prison, and breaking them all financially till they literally do not have roofs, over their befuddled heads.

    That’s what this all is. It’s a giant government chemistry scam that got so big, government employees simply dared the entire world, to make them stop perpetrating the fraud. It started out as a grants scam by James Hansen, hence the early ”tropopause CO2 concentration levels” element to the scam, because he had something he could claim only he could study, up in a place that was very easy to convince people they couldn’t go, to check with the certainty he could.

    Many years ago I heard from the voice of Hansen’s supervisor, the entire inside-and-out of the scam, how they claim, they can calculate temperatures of compressible fluids refusing to use the necessary mathematics to account for the compression warming intrinsic to physical behavior of compressible fluids… how the reason the fake STEFAN-BOLTZMANN MASSAGE TRICK doesn’t WORK is because the TEMPERATURES DERIVED D.O. NOT MATCH TRUE TEMPERATURES AS MEASURED with INSTRUMENTS, BECAUSE of this difference and that – in the case of our Earth, and our global atmosphere the MANDATORY ERROR of such PSEUDO-CALCULATIONS is

    that’s right, 33 d.e.g.r.e.e.s.

    And he explained how, if you don’t see gas law in the string of calculations, – AS IN ALL THESE CURRENT SO-CALLED ‘MODELS’ of CLIMATE – they AREN’T, because they don’t PROCESS GAS TEMPERATURES using GAS LAW – not one of them do them all because they REQUIRE the 33 DEGREE SHORTFALL to INVENT a ”ghg effect” that doesn’t exist,

    he explained how ANY ONE taking apart any model built on this STEFAN-BOLTZMANN//REFUSAL TO PROCESS GAS TEMPS USING GAS LAW at the APPROPRIATE JUNCTURE to account for this compression warming – will SEE,
    that NOWHERE in the MODEL
    is there PROPER accounting of the COMPRESSION.

    This is HOW
    you SHORT CIRCUIT all that mathematics bullshit
    by going STRAIGHT to the REAL DEAL: WHY CAN’T YOU CALCULATE THE TEMPERATURE of the GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE and MATCH the ANSWERS arrived at creating foundations of the
    International Standard Atmosphere?

    We know that temperature mathematic progression is correct, it’s the international regulatory AND PHYSICAL STANDARD,
    we – ultimately, calibrate and compare all our instruments to, in legal liability and warranty of everything that generates heat – which happens – you know – in air, or not, mostly..

    when you ask them this you are RIGHT ON the INITIAL FRAUD of the MOVEMENT: faking
    calculation of gases’ temperatures,
    REFUSING to USE the gas law responsible for taking care of this compression-related temperature differential, in – again – compressible phase fluids.

    This is why you see me ask them why they can’t even hit the International Standard Atmosphere.
    Their mathematics fall 33 degrees short so they INVENT FAKE WARMING BY A CLASS of GASES which are actually the COOLANTS
    of the
    cold nitrogen bath

    the planet by
    conduction scrubbing energy from it.

    Once you have it established that we all know that they’re operating from FAKE TEMPERATURE PARAMETERS you kinda already have them rolled up because WITHOUT that 33 FAKE DEGREES THERE IS
    you have what you see sweeping the planet globally: the vestiges of this gigantic fraud.

    And you’ve GOTTA know what to say, to go RIGHT to the HEEL of their FIRST mathematical fraud.

    When YOU don’t DO this
    PART of the SCAM because the SCAM,
    KEEP em ARGUING with you. (With them.)

    This is why you guys can’t defeat them swiftly and shut down entire forums, in just a few days, because when you attack the heads of the fraud hydra downstream from the original fraud,
    you’re HELPING them PERPETRATE the FRAUD as they ”take time to ”explain” it all to you.”

    THAT’S part of the FRAUD.

    so you can’t get that shit sorted out and move on to a bigger, brighter, less fraudulent day.

    The name of the gas law they refuse to use is the Ideal Gas Law and it comes in two parts.
    The first part is the equation, PV=nRT.

    Now – in this law, this ”second part” is the CHART: a painstakingly drawn up list of all the gases and more common gas mixtures, and their internal energy holding capacity.

    This is ANOTHER place you get them with GAS LAW: you tell them to SHOW you the PART of the CHART that has CO2 holding more energy than Standard class atmospheric air.

    *The Chart Assigns CO2 LESS ENERGY than AIR*

    Therefore by mathematical definition,
    addition of CO2 to Standard air mix,

    Not raises it.

    The other thing here is the part where pressure and volume, equate to the other side of… well… the equation that COMPRISES the LAW for GAS TEMPERATURE.

    When you’ve got these gas energy handling mathematics at some point along the way, you deal with figuring out what the pressure actually is so you know how much mass, you’re dealing with.

    For the love of Gaia I just lost my entire train of thought, my wife came in, and I don’t remember the hydrostatic equation, it’s very short – in any case the hydrostatic equation, gives you the answer, called in gas mechanics, the ”hydrostatic condition.” Again, this is the pressure of the gas,

    and the higher pressure, the higher temperature, in general with gases. You know, this is for a very simple reason: when the individual molecule can expand, and not encounter other electrons, from other molecules, to hand energy back and forth to, it’ll simply hold more energy, without leaking any out.

    When you have many many gas molecules colliding with the sides of an air pump, they can hand off, a lot of energy, and do.

    When you reduce the pressure the gas is susceptible to, you’re definitionally giving it’s electrons, just plain more space to expand out, accommodating the energy it entangles, by what we call inflation. The electron occupies a larger geometric space as the light it has entangled, now kinda reverted to a more standard electromagnetic energy package, a more generic nomenclature or name, not photonic at the moment, but entangled with this electron, – it’s the cause of inflation in gases.
    Convection itself is partly due to inflation. The inflation’s not a lot of course but gases, whose electrons can occupy large spaces, hold similar energies, at lower temperatures. Because… why? Because, we’re only measuring, whatever leaks out, see. And generally, your leakage in the atmosphere of course is to the neighboring molecules, and we’re right back around to the point, where we started out talking about how gases, seem to hold less energy, – they do – when they’re compressed.
    They hand the energy they encounter through various means, through contact with each other,
    and when you compress many of them into say an iron tube, if you heat one side, what happens is that they start handing it off, very swiftly – and so, the other side of the tube rapidly gets hot.

    Ok. So – what’s the VERY first fraud in this?

    Claiming to be able to calculate temperatures of gases, REFUSING to USE gas LAW at the proper point.

    What is this called? STEFAN-BOLTZMANN FRAUD.

    Question you ask the hick you’re exposing: WHY is there even a gas law AT ALL? Why do we NEED a gas law?

    Answer – one part is ACCOUNTING for PRESSURE vs VOLUME MASS VARIATION so intrinsic to – WHAT phase matter?

    COMPRESSIBLE phase matter.

    What is the EXACT nature of the ”STEFAN-BOLTZMANN” fraud?


    What is the layman’s ”hydrostatic condition” term? PRESSURE.

    Intrinsically variable pressure is
    WHY you HAVE to have a GAS LAW, at ALL,
    do not PROCESS the temperatures of *Compressible phase matter properly:
    processing the gases as though they are i.n.c.o.m.p.r.e.s.s.i.b.l.e. – or that the compression has already been accounted for. That’s the actual situation with gases, when you have done the hydrostatic equation
    using properly processed gas law mathematics,
    and accounted for

    the TRAGIC 33 degree mandatory shortfall

    REQUIRED if you DON’T use proper gas law to calculate say,
    our Global Atmosphere – it * click *

    goes away, and you’re
    no longer processing F.R.A.U.D.

    That’s how the scam’s original fakery is done, and un-done.

    If you let them argue with you about ANYTHING ELSE you have ALREADY agreed to LOSE – and HELP perpetuate the fraud. Because in fraud, KEEPING them TALKING about it STOPS them from DOING something ABOUT YOU.

    This is why I often come here Joseph and say these same things over and over. My parents were involved in busting chemistry frauds when I was a child and there is a rule for busting scientific fraud: go DIRECTLY to the VERY first VIOLATION of PHYSICAL and MATHEMATICAL LAW: and
    DON’T let them DRIVE you OFF that POINT.

    They’ll go insane as you saw the vampire Anthony Watts, magic gas barking fraud, do. Remember how he used to and still does, seem to normal people to go insane and start ranting about how ”offended” he is, about YOU – the SCIENTIST – talking about YOUR – scientific profession?

    A profession HE couldn’t ENTER because he was so STUPID? yEAH that’s because he can’t stand you pointing out his FRAUD


    And in the case of Watts’, Eschenbach’s, Cook’s F R A U D,

    it’s a TYPE fraud called an ”inversion” fraud where EARLY on, certain critical parameters are REVERSED, and you’re FORBIDDEN to EVER again – by people perpetrating these type frauds – to invoke, THERMODYNAMIC LAW: because these laws are SO transparent, EVERYONE knows a lot of them.

    Conservation of Energy is the main one in these temperature inversion frauds because it’s a case of everytime a mathematic is performed, or witnessed, less must become more – or conversely, more, less.

    I busted these frauds as a child with my parents and actually sat around while they boned up on several different chemistry frauds being practiced by people in the animal medicines and nutritional markets. Pets and veterinary nutritional and medical chemistry fraud used to be even more rampant than it was, and in the case of many of my parents’ investigations into people, it was exotic and rare fish, which were being trafficked, and these animals if nothing else, are atmospherically sensitive. The water they live in is of course their atmosphere and it’s in direct contact with the surface above; and fish, as well as a shitload of other animals in our environment, use this interface to great advantage in leveraging the power and robustness of gills, and breathing through their skins.

    Part of animal chemistry in trafficking them is their health, and bad atmosphere makes shit get sick and die. So there was a LOT – I mean a SHITLOAD of atmospheric chemistry work in my parents’ pets and fish business – and, in having people scam you by keeping these aquatic critters, in bad water.
    Since they’re breathing through their skin, or through gills, or through some combination of it, you have to be able to sort out medical pathologies in these critters, against the claims of how they’ve been handled.

    All of this is environmental, and atmospheric chemistry on a very advanced, and an accelerated, scale, because you have these quantities of chemicals – the animals and their environments – compacted so they’re reacting like yon house afire, so to speak at times, many MANY times more sensitive than actual larger bodies of water for the simple reason there’s so much natural dilution of any kind of input – thermal, gas, liquid, solids – more water, is more buffering against some kinda poisoning. Things swim, crawl, float, migrate away from a poison or whatever kind of unpleasantness is happening.

    Later on I had done all that for some years in my parents’ businesses, and was gonna go into a different field and I chose – radiation related, electronic engineering – generating, amplifying, encoding with intelligence then transmitting, capturing and decoding, then ultimately discarding – radiation.

    A lot of it in the field of – go figure, infrared communications: down fiber, even down into remotes. Radiant communications electronic engineering is arranging chemicals – metals, liquids, elements like silica – into radiation generation devices.

    So when I was out on my day job in school for radiant communications electronic engineering and this guy came on and explained the entirety of the green house gas scam’s ORIGINS in VERY clear detail,

    I knew wtF he was saying,
    and I knew to start watching Hansen,
    and I knew that whereas I had been thinking of applying for work at N.A.S.A
    I might be wanting to watch what I was saying around whom, if such a huge scam was actually going on – and my parents were both in business on one side – and on the other side, one of my parents was in local then later, Federal law enforcement so I knew what happens when a bureaucracy is overtaken with frauds; and I knew what to look for.

    This is a temperature inversion fraud where a cold nitrogen bath scrubbing a light-warmed rock,
    is claimed to be heating it.
    Then alternately is claimed to be cooling it slower.

    But then there’s the claim of the magical heater core, the green house gases, actually raising the temperature of the planet 33 degrees.

    This fraudulent claim is nowhere in the procession of mathematics involved in deriving the REAL global atmospheric temperature, and the REAL
    and regulatory

    named the International Standard Atmosphere.


    mandatory in discovering temperatures of COMPRESSIBLE phase matter – fluids. Gases.

    This is STEFAN-BOLTZMANN FRAUD and is how the FRAUDS spreading it contrive to come up with some sort of ”effect.”

    The cold nitrogen bath conduction scrubbing the light-warmed rocky planet is not a heater.

    The water-dominated class of gases called green house gases because they refract the same frequencies of light typically emitted by the Earth in infrared, are coolants.

    The water mainly but the green house gases overall, stop 20% of otherwise available warming spectra from the sun,

    from ever entering into Earth’s physical and mathematical system.

    This first reduction of surface energy density through refraction,

    is further enhanced by yet more cooling, the conduction cooling the overwhelmingly cooler gases, are doing,

    and on top of that,
    the main green house gas is also a

    phase change refrigerant,
    engaging in 24/7 evaporative/condensation enhancement of the standard single-phase gases’
    more classical and simple conduction cooling.

    This phase change refrigeration extends not just to Earth’s surface and related features but to refrigeration of the overall nitrogen/oxygen bath, the light blocking refrigerant, is mixed into.

    You must get around in front of these people and make it known to those investigating, whether they’re participating or not – you MUST make it clear that these people are operating from the fraud of not calculating gas temperatures right, in the first place: and this way others will be able to more clearly understand how you can be so confident that every single step along the way,

    more and more thermodynamic violations are going to come from the scuzz-ball frauds, perpetrating this fakery.

    You must also explain to them how, and kinda give them the entire run down about the Ideal Gas Law being the law they refuse to use: and the REASON such a gas law must exist: to account for the compression of – COMPRESSIBLE phase matter.

    Once you do this, it becomes very easy to sort everyone out. Until you do this, they just go round, and round, and round, and you
    the scam.

    Do you hear what I’m saying to you guys? When you discuss anything but the very first violations
    you are perpetrating the fraud: get paid,
    to argue with you. That’s the fraud.

    Get paid,
    to argue.

    And you’re the mark.

    So whatcha gotta do to any fraud is find out the very first place it’s provable they can’t, or AREN’T, counting properly, and the VERY first place is also where – GO FIGURE
    you see this CLAIM
    being CLAIMED to EXIST
    in order to ACCOUNT
    for – in this case – these frauds’ FAKERY creating a 33 DEGREE SHORTFALL from the REAL


    which lead directly and obviously – to our REAL global atmospheric temperature.

    To our REAL global atmospheric temperature,
    regulatory and physical

    calibrational Standard.


    Much love, Joseph. (Pounds chest and extends fist like a Roman) Much love to you, and all these other slayers, who have done your best

    to defy

    these evil


    fraudulent fucks.

    I knew when you started out Joseph, that you’re just an honest well meaning man, in an ocean of evil assed lying m***f***rs called ”Academics” and the poltical lackeys they play,

    like the scum

    Watts, Eschenbach, Halpern, Cook, et al.

    I could see very clearly that you were gonna have to figure out how to deal with these people on your own; it was your career, and your reputation that you were pushing the chips ”All In” with.

    I grew up around those bastards. Well.. you know… the bastards just like them from another time, and somewhat other field of general, environmental, atmospheric,

    chemistry fraud.

    I don’t come here to taunt you Joseph or derail your threads, it’s about the only place I come to discuss this fraud at all, except at times to descend on some forum of hicks and burn their fucking huts down around their ears while they all have to watch it happen to each other. I do that more rarely nowadays since in general the word is out that it’s a scam, and since my wife has bought a second house, and both my sons are looking like they’re about to buy them.

    Mr. Technology, retired, is now Mr. ‘Does all that nasty stuff nobody else will’ UN-retired, in two states.

    I appreciate being able to come here and vent some about this Joseph and like I said I’m not trying to really derail your conversations. I’ll kinda confess. A lot of the most illuminating conversations I ever read in my life were encountered in situations I’ll claim are similar to this one. Big field of discussion overall, huge scam, huge story – and someone who understood the whole thing because by some fluke they were following it from – I dunno somewhere around the beginning – would come in and just give forth this big explanation of the thing from the standpoint of someone who had a specialists’ knowledge in the matter but didn’t have to give a shit because they retired out or came along after the scam was big, and managed to duck it.

    I managed to kinda just push it aside in my own field in everyday work, because we radiation engineers are the guys people call when they want to magnify their own field, a thousand times. Like say… brain surgery. Or… rice farming.

    Wireless radiant energy, used in communications, is some of the most widely applied technology on earth, appended to every conceivable form of human endeavor from leveling a field for a new subdivision, to figuring out how level a field is on Mars. We just, are involved or are interested, in understanding almost everything under the sun ever created by mankind, because as electronics people, we’re always being asked to multiply those endeavors’ efficiency.

    And then I personally of course grew up in a fantastic situation where my parents where both scientists, on the one side – my mothers’ AND my fathers – and cops: and we BUSTED people doing scams in the VERY fields of environmental, and atmospheric, chemistry.

    So I think about this scam a lot and how I can sorta salt the conversations you guys have, as you all go about sorting out how to deal with so much fraud, spread so far, so fast.

    As I said. You take them to the VERY first PLACE it can be documented ANY of them are committing a fraud, and THAT,
    is in
    James Hansen’s ”models” – they’re not atmospheric models because atmospheric temperature calculations are not processed, in them – and the

    REFUSAL to CALCULATE temperatures of gas volumes CORRECTLY.

    Again this is done by REFUSING to INVOKE the proper GAS LAW – dealing with compressible phase matter

    and it RESULTS in there being a 33 degree SHORTFALL in the Church’s VERY FIRST CALCULATIONS.

    This 33 degree shortfall places them having arrived at ONE temperature for our Global atmosphere
    while the REAL global atmospheric temperature
    set in stone
    in the mathematics processes used to derive our International
    calibrational Standard

    named the International Standard Atmosphere.

    If you go anywhere else and argue about other things,
    ALWAYS makes sure before you leave, you TAUNT them about this.

    Because this is at the VERY BASIS of proving it’s A.L.L. fraud: from THAT fake,




    And if you can SHOW that to people
    you don’t have to go around, and around, to ”kinda” set things clear.

    At any moment you can simply say to them, ”YOUR LEADERS can’t even CALCULATE global ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE PROPERLY,” and from that point, run it all down.

    Make them NAME the GAS law responsible for discovering and processing gas, and atmospheric temperatures. It’s the Ideal Gas Law.

    Make them EXPLAIN to you why there has to BE: another law, and you can’t just USE – the Stefan-Boltzmann processing you would for NON compressible phase matter.

    Point out that they don’t know wtF they’re even talking about and then go on to explain to those looking on that the reason he doesn’t know the name of that law is because HIS CHURCH REFUSES TO USE IT when they ARRIVE at the ERRONEOUS, 33-DEGREES-short TEMPERATURE they ”PSEUDO-CALCULATE” that ”temperature”

    so they can INVENT A FAKE WARMING.

    Point out that that warming
    is SOLELY the result of compression – of pressure –
    and that it’s intrinsic to compressible phase matter that it’s mass/volume ratio is – well… fluid.

    I mean that’s not a pun, really, the gases are compressible fluids, and this rapidly changing, in fact intrinsically variable mass to volume ratio, is the reason – well, PART of the reason,
    there has to BE another law, for compressible phase matter temperature calculations.

    I hope, I really do, I’m doing you and your audience a service, Joseph, even though I suppose a lot of these long screeds I type are purest of off-topic hijackings. I apologize to you again as I have multiple times since meeting you and coming here, for my enthusiasm for using your forum,

    as a place to express what I know about it.

    I want you all to know that I hope you each and every one, get to enjoy the personal satisfaction of destroying many of these nests of frauds, and I do hope, that my words contribute to your confidence in dealing with these people.

    You must make them ashamed to be saying what they’re saying and they will not be ashamed,
    until what you say,
    can very
    PROVE – that not a FUCKIN’ ONE of THEM can COUNT.

    NOT a FUCKIN’ ONE. Not Michael Mann, not James Hansen, not Joshua Halpern, not Jonathan Cook or whatever that molester’s name is – not Anthony Watts, not that mentally ill hick Willis Eschenbach.

    PROVING to them all
    in FRONT of them all
    that not a ONE of them can even COUNT well enough
    to realize the FATAL error of not being able to calculate the global atmospheric temp right
    is a BIG effing slap in the face because that


    is not gonna be argued with. That temperature is RIGHT.

    THEIRS doesn’t MATCH it,
    so – THAT’S the end of their shit RIGHT there till THEIR math
    matches YOUR
    and international physical and regulatory Standards’,

    There are gonna be scores, hundreds of people who come by and read what we’re saying here guys and I know I personally go on too long, and sometimes when I’m out in the sticks on my phone only, I post up some sloppy, sloppy grammar errors.

    To tell you the truth Joseph I myself had a sorta personal… reckoning with the extent of all this fraud, and it shames me and disgraces me to the core to know my beloved scientific discourse and integrity, has been dragged through the molester-porn world of the professional political scientific darkener – like Cook, Eschenbach, Halpern, Watts, Joanne Nova, et al.

    They’re just f***ng lying frauds, whose understandings of the matter after all these years leave them still vulnerable to being told to their faces, ”you’re so f***g stupid you can’t even tell me the name of the law of thermodynamics responsible for processing gas and atmospheric temperatures.”

    The moment you do this you catch them TWICE.

    First because their ORIGINAL FRAUD is in CALCULATING atmospheric temperature, LEAVING OUT the proper GAS LAW

    and then secondly because the CHART of energies of gases and mixes,
    names and quantifies CO2 vs Standard, atmospheric air mix,
    and gives CO2 the LOWER energy per mole, per volume.
    In other words, it’s COOLER than air, and COOLS air when it’s mixed in.

    So – you knowing this law and the DUAL PINCER that BRINGING IT UP CREATES for THE FRAUDS is CRITICAL to your having a sure footing when you start talking to them about who can count,
    and who’s an innumerate, illiterati HICK.

    ((Peace Joseph)) ((all you other guys trying to stamp this evil shit out.))

    You are all to be commended for trying to spread the word to the largest number of people possible.

    Please don’t forget what I’ve told you here today if you’re a reader, whether new to busting this scam or not – even if it’s kinda presumptuous to say it all here, at Joseph’s place.

    I know, I know, I should start my own.

    Maybe I will. Somebody’s gotta be able to explain it all to my grandkids who are now being born in succession, several of them, matter of fact.

    But for now please accept that this is my *humble* explanation of this scam before you people.

    It’s humble because I haven’t taken any credit where it’s not due, I didn’t discover the scam’s nature and origin on my own, I heard Hansen’s ex supervisor explain the scam, to a reporter on PBS one day when I was out in a field, working toward my Bachelor’s in Radiant Communications Electronic Engineering,

    and being a working, professional grade atmospheric and environmental chemist and environmental biologist by the time I was in my teens,

    atmospheric chemistry was just a natural thing to me; and my upcoming career in Rad/Comms Electronic Engineering meant there was a strong chance, I’d go to work for N.A.S.A.

    so when I heard about a big chemistry scam being afoot, I perked up and listened intently, and simply never forgot it because the conversation just happened to be down two sides, of the main street, my education was/is based in: the chemistry
    of all things.

    And in particular
    the chemistry and physics involved in radiant and electromagnetic
    energy transfer and handling.

    And then there was the third part of my education that made me savvy to this sorta thing going on: my father was a political activist, a police chief, and later, a Federal law enforcement professional,
    and I had the inside scoop on how
    chemistry scams are busted,
    because he lent his authority where he could, to help my mother bust them,

    and I had the inside scoop, on how bureaucratic purgings take place, and where to look to see if the scam was actually broken or just had been made public.

    I knew the operatives like Watts and Eschenbach and Cook would do a lot of the heavy lifting for the government employees who did their parts, by threatening to prosecute people who were trying to reveal the fraud.

    Again: peace on you people, those of you who are interested in spreading the word about the origin and CENTRAL TENET of the ghg scam: CALCULATING TEMPERATURES OF GASES,
    and going straight to the Stefan-Boltzmann processing without accounting for the compression warming

    intrinsic to – what? Intrinsic to compressible phase fluids.

  64. Allen Eltor says:

    Joseph forgive me again. I guess a lotta your guys here reading about the scam and discussing it with you ask themselves, wtF I’m saying, that has ANYTHING to do, with radiant ghg effect.

    Listen to me carefully and watch how this works, dear readers.

    Have the FRAUDBILLY you are spitting into the face of explain to you precisely

    how much more light warms and leaves planet Earth,

    for every percent otherwise available warming radiation,

    the green house gases keep from reaching and warming, and leaving Earth.

    Tell them – no, mufus, this is not a mistake on my part,

    you told me,
    the class gases,

    refracting 20% of the otherwise available radiant energy
    away from Earth so it never joins the physical or mathematical processes of the planet,

    have made the planet’s temperature rise, 33 degrees, by doing so.

    In existing you claim, they simultaneously remove 20% of all available warming spectra
    and yet that for each % removed, for each % less radiant energy arriving,

    additional radiant spectra leak out of Earth: such that when 25,000 ppm water and 400 ppm CO2,

    stop 20% of all radiant spectra from becoming part of Earth’s systems

    they simultaneously make enough light leak out of the planet that the overall planetary temperature

    goes up by 33 degrees.

    Tell them to account that to you: and that you’re not interested in anything at this point but RADIANT GREEN HOUSE GAS WARMING: when the GHGs stop 20%
    of all radiant energy from arriving,
    how much more radiant energy leaves,
    for each percent less arriving,

    such that 20% less radiant energy radiating in,
    creates sufficient radiant energy leaving,
    that temperature rises, by 33 degrees.
    I’m sometimes guilty of believing that people are going to just naturally make the mental connects I make, when I start talking about what’s apparently off topic, Joseph. Because I don’t believe people are stupid.

    But here again, I started out discussing my thoughts on your blog, and I haven’t made any connection to the radiant arguments I see you and others discussing and for which the thread’s named.

    If you’re looking for a way to simply smash your heel into the entire gaggle of frauds’ noses, simply order them to explain to you how much more energy radiates out,

    for every percent less energy, radiating in.

    Don’t do the work for them, and don’t be baited by them saying, ”oH, yew ain’t no buh LeeVuR soe yew cain’t hardly noe nuthin bowt these heeyur… clime it isms.”

    Just firm up like a teacher who’s caught Johnny smearing a booger in Janie’s ponytail and DEMAND they explain to YOU – and each other,

    how much more light radiates out,
    for every percent light, that never arrives.

    Don’t let them drag you around by the vocabulary they use. Don’t let them change the subject and start claiming you don’t understand about the Backerdistical Con Stunt.

    Another thing that hammers it home to the crowd is when you tell their experts, ”tell me the answer or you’re the fraud barking fake I’m telling these people, I can show them, you ARE. You’re a FAKE.”

    When you hone in on these violation of conservation of energy problems all inversion scams have,

    stiffen up and get very authoritarian, and very inflexible. Tell them: to their face: you answer me or you’re the fake I told these people you are when I got here and saw you barking about the Magical Heater. HOW much MORE light RADIATES OUT of a ROCK,
    that has 20% less LIGHT radiate IN? *ANSWER ME,* FAKE.”

    There are times, when – what you do, is you simply slap them all out of their mutually induced, delusion of superiority, by singling out any and all of them, at any given moment, and telling him he’s a fraud and a fake, and that ”you’re about to ”show all these people” you’re one.”

    And then go right back, to these fundamentals. If they want to talk about radiant Backerdisms, then demand they talk about them to you in mathematically concise, checkable, amounts, *that* – listen to me – a.n.y.o.n.e. including little children and their wives should they look over their shoulders – could see clearly: make them afraid for anyone to see their screen, and the ludicrous bullshit they ”I caught your stupid #*& barking” when you ”thought no one could see you.”

    Catch them like that, and go directly to the most fundamental conservation of energy violation you can identify, and in this case, the violation of conservation of energy is that they’re claiming some light refracting insulation,
    makes 20% of available warming firelight,
    never warm a rock,

    and that every time a percent less light goes into the rock
    an additional percent plus the percent that never radiates in, comes radiating out.

    Just put it, JUST that simply and then go over to ”and another thing: why can’t any of you hicks calculate the temperature of the planetary atmosphere correctly? We know what the real temperature is, it’s the temperature of the International Standard, we all calibrate – ultimately, every machine or measurement we make regarding production of heat, against

    Tell them saying ”We know those mathematics are correct, so why does your Church, – capitalize their ‘Church’ every time you mention it, and refer to their ”beliefs” as ”doctrines” because everybody’s gonna see when you call them with that ”how much more radiates out, each time less radiates in? question.

    Now listen this is like telling your wife or girlfriend that she’s a better lover than her sister. They’re gonna start to buck and try to throw you out of the saddle like a bull that knows if it doesn’t get you off, there’s failure RIGHT there staring them in the face.

    So when this happens you’ve gotta be ready.

    Mock them
    and taunt them at that point,
    for not being able to name for you
    the Law of thermodynamcs responsible for calculating temperatures of gases and of course the Atmosphere.

    Then just cut right over to ”Oh that’s right you hicks don’t bother using Gas law when you fraudulently mis-‘calculate’ the temperature of the Atmosphere,

    attempting to get by with fraudulent Stefan-Boltzmann massage,


    Then you tell them – what’s the reason there even has to BE a gas law?

    They’ll just be like OmFGaia….OmFGaia… and you just KEEP rolling them by saying ”to account for what?” Taunt them.

    And say ”To account for the compression warming intrinsic to PRESSURE and GASES.

    They’ll try for awhile, sometimes a forum of them will last three days. Usually for me by the time 18 to 36 hours are up they’re all just too stunned to even speak any more because you just keep going back over, and over, and over,

    the violations of conservation of energy that are so obvious: cold bath is a heater, insulation in the bath stopping 20% of all energy from radiating in, makes more and more radiate out, each time it makes another percent not radiate IN,

    this is devastating to them because YOU, can keep going ALL DAY LONG, if you NEVER leave that BASE that is your FIRST big PROOF you’re RIGHT: the fact that even their LEADERS –

    the calculation
    of the global atmosphere
    that is so obviously correct: the International Standard Atmosphere.

    If they can’t match that then- they’re wrong from that point forth and you never have to even nod to the doorman when you come in or go by.

    You must understand that all their so-called ”wins” yesterday were based on them trying to cover for the frauds of political figures stealing the world blind: they only get paid, most of these you argue with and certainly the ones who cheerlead the ones who get paid, in the joy of mocking you and acting superior.

    When you walk in armed with what I have told you guys about how the fraud’s VERY FIRST FAKERY is this FAKE gas ”calculation” ‘technique’ – it’s simply PURE fraud to REFUSE to USE GAS LAW –

    what happens is that – these people aren’t taught to refer to any ‘gas law’. So YOU say – the GAS LAW that BRIDGES and UNIFIES the FOUR BEFORE it, WHAT is the NAME of it?

    Mock them over and over about not knowing anything about gas law but DO it – by simply laying out everything I’m telling you the reader about how James Hansen claimed that government computers are so fast they can calculate the temperatures of COMPRESSIBLE PHASE material using the PROCESS for INCOMPRESSIBLE phase or known-density phase matter.

    When doing the radiation processing related to gases, you DO ultimately, refer to and use, Stefan-Boltzmann process, but what the FRAUD involves,
    is NOT
    using the GAS LAW required to figure out that ‘hydrostatic condition’ I told you about.

    And when you simply freeze them all up mocking them RIGHT up FRONT for not even KNOWING the NAME of the GAS LAW governing what they claim,

    lemme tell ya, they sit right the f*** up and you can practically HEAR their hands sweating around their mouse – then under their arms, their hair – as they realize – you just called their fucking bluff.

    When you say that, you have to be able to simply and reliably explain that – that 33 degree shortfall hasn’t got ONE effing THING to DO with ANY green house gas, at ALL, it’s the COMPRESSION warming

    the gas law
    has to account for
    and if it’s not done for our atmosphere

    FIRST pea out of the DISH: WRONG answer on the global atmospheric temperature.
    HOW can we make THEIR answer,
    match the RIGHT answer?

    Use Gas Law in the mathematical process describing temperature and pressure and all this –


    Another extremely valuable tool in simply shaming these fuc**g frauds is to ORDER them: SHOW ME that ”other time” in ALLLLLLLLLL thermodynamics when a COLD nitrogen bath, made a light warmed rock WARMER
    than if there were no cold bath conduction chilling the light warmed rock. ”SHOW ME. WE’LL all WAIT HERE.” Tell em ”Take your time, you’re gonna need it. COLD nitrogen bath conduction scrubbing rock, makes rock WARMER than if rock had to RADIATE all the energy it took on, WITHOUT the COLD BATH CHILLING it.

    So there is a VERY very REAL element to my mocking of the fraud’s radiant claims but I’m a professional class fraud BUSTER – or was as a kid, the rules are REAL simple: go to the VERY first detectable VIOLATION of mathematical/physical law,

    and as I keep repeating to you guys who are – in fact discussing something governed by gas law – in conjuction with Stefan Boltzmann processing as well, but without the GAS LAW you can NOT achieve proper calculation of temperatures of gases –

    and I don’t see you guys discuss gas law a lot because obviously – you guys aren’t really or haven’t really been, mostly, gas specialists.

    Well, what you need to know is that the reason there has to BE a gas law function included in gas energy handling calculations. If you aren’t even fluent in discussing this, what chance do you have busting a GAS energy scam?

    Ok? And then, you need to know the name of that law and be able to identify it by something other than name – just point out that it ‘bridges and unifies the four major gas laws that preceded it.’

    It’s name, you need to know. – I mean people you’re all discussing gas energy here I’m not completely wrong to try to get this across to ya all even if it is off topic, I do apologize, I really do Joseph – it’s name is the Ideal Gas Law.

    And you need to know it’s equation. PV (pressure times volume) = nRT (the n*umber of moles of gas or gas mix, times R, which is REAL important – times TEMPERATURE)

    You need to know that R represents the average energy per mole, listed on the –

    * * *this is also mandatory for you to learn, it’s just a few things, guys ** *

    CHART: that COMPRISES * * *you gotta know this* * * – – the 2ND HALF of the LAW – – –

    You need to know that the REASON NONE of them – even them that KNOW it’s a SCAM –

    can BEAR DISCUSSION of ANY GAS LAW is because the EQUATION proves the relationship of pressure, and volume thus ultimately total mass involved, hence ultimately temperature arrived at when irradiated by a certain amount of light,

    but ALSO – this is a hard part to memorize, – DO it – the CHART – the CHART specifically NAMES CO2 and Atmospheric Air,
    and ASSIGNS CO2 laden mix, LESS ENERGY per MOLE:

    the LAW MANDATES that AIR with CO2 ADDED

    So you need to know the GAS LAW their SCAM MUST LEAVE OUT in calculating gas temps,
    DIRECTLY addresses their claims, in the EQUATION – taking into account PRESSURE related to TEMPERATURE – and the CHART, which is the OTHER half of that law, DIRECTLY FORBIDS CO2 doing anything but LOWERING the TEMPERATURE of AIR it’s mixed into.

    When you’re able to clearly remember and recount this to others you can make them go look it up.
    The chart is called ‘Gas Constant Chart on this Engineer’s Toolbox page, this is a partial chart:

    This ‘R’ is the factor where if there were truth to the fact CO2 addition can warm air, the LAW would be MANDATING it. But as you can all see: NOBODY associated with the FAKE CHURCH

    wants ANYTHING TO DO with ANY mention of GAS LAW,
    whether it be the EQUATION – which leads you to pointing out that Stefan-Boltzmann isn’t a process for ACCOUNTING the intrinsically fluid variability of mass/volume ratio in – COMPRESSIBLE phase matter.

    Why do gases have a law for their temperature? Because Stefan-Boltzmann alone isn’t a process for accounting the intrinsic volume mass relationship of matter.

    And what’s the mandatory error if someone TRIES to FRAUD their way through REFUSING to USE GAS LAW wherever it’s presence is necessary for accurate accounting of matter-energy relationships?

    33 degrees.
    33 degrees is the mandatory error on planet Earth,
    should someone fraudulently claim to calculate global atmospheric temperature
    and refuse
    to admit and use gas law in their ‘processing’, and try to get by, with Stefan-Boltzman-only type fraud.

    Again Stefan Boltzman is used in solving gas radiant energy problems but only when proper gas law has previously been used, in form of the ‘hydrostatic equation,’

    in order to discover or solve for the ‘hydrostatic condition.’

    If you can get this big ring of facts through your head, and do it with sufficient intellectual acumen that you can simply talk about the Gas Law, discuss it’s TWO parts, discuss what each of the factors in the equation are, – it’s real simple, it addresses that PRESSURE portion I told you about and which when UNACCOUNTED gives that infamous ”33 degrees” shortfall –

    you’re a LOT better off because without discussing gas law in – GASES – you’re unable to discuss, a lot of what this is all about:

    the laws, governing the temperatures, of gases.

    And when you CAN kinda jump around on this sorta logjam of

    1)the name of the law
    2why you have to have it
    3)the fact the International Standard Atmosphere MUST use it to get the right answer
    4)the fact their ‘math’ CAN’T MATCH that
    5)because their FAKERY STARTS with M.I.S.C.A.L.C.U.L.A.T.I.N.G. atmospheric temperature
    6)giving a MANDATORY 33 degree ERROR

    you’re already a long, LONG way down simply THRASHING – ANY forum of men who would dare argue with you because it’s EASY to CHECK

    whether Stefan Boltzman calculation alone, delivers up that 33 degree error.

    It’s easy to EXPOSE them- the ENTIRE F***G forum even of their WORLD’s best ‘experts’

    u.n.a.b.l.e. to even d.i.s.c.u.s.s. with you, the a.c.t.u.a .l. laws and processes involved, in finding out the temperatures, of gases.

    Do you know how many bunches of them I’ve waded into, sorted out the author of the book or whatever, the big Kahuna, and dared him to name the law governing the temperature of the atmosphere and had that FAKE lock up like a skateboard in a lagoon?


    Then when you start mocking them and mocking them USING the law itself, the CHART, they naturally jump to ANOTHER topic.

    If they claim it’s about ”radiant transfer” then you IMMEDIATELY – just ORDER them to TELL you

    ”exactly how much more light radiates out of the planet every time the light refractive insulation makes less radiate into it?”

    ”Tell me now or you’re the fake I told everybody it would be so easy to prove you are.”

    You can say this to a.n.y.o.n.e. and they will be so locked up you will – watch what I tell you- sit there and practically SEE them wiping the sweat off their mouse hand, unable to touch the keyboard, opening other tabs sitting there in glazed over, defeated, trance of the
    just-busted fraud-barking dipshit.

    It’s really key to breaking this down to something the NON sophists can openly mock them with.
    You don’t need another hundred PhDs for this.

    You need a hundred thousand plumbers and aircraft mechanics and administrators, daring them to answer the question ”how much more light leaks out of a rock, the magical insulation makes less light leak into? Tell me clearly now. How much more leaks out, every time the magic gas makes another percent less, leak in? If you don’t answer me you’re the thermodynamic law violating fraud barking hick I told everyone here you are, when I saw you going on about a cold nitrogen bath that’s a giant magic heater.”

    It’s hard for them to rebound from this kind of thing. When you guys came over and chewed up those guys at that other website on that other fraud, there wasn’t much for me to do but sit back and let it take it’s course, but the thing about doing this the way I tell you is that it puts YOU in the driver’s seat educating people about what REALLY governs’ gas temperatures: GAS LAW.

    Anyway it’s off to work on my wife’s house, and stop spamming you guys but I really wish you’d all consider what the reason is, that the people associated with this scam, simply demand you NOT discuss
    the laws-of-physics violations,
    always going in many different directions.

    It REALLY bolsters YOUR case if you can point out that their claim is outright violation of Conservation of Energy in claiming a cold nitrogen bath heats the object it’s chilling,

    then go STRAIGHT into explaining all about the Gas law accounting for the PRESSURE, and their Church’s MAIN calculations NOT even being able to MATCH International Atmospheric Standard
    temperature – and how
    as SOON as one ACCOUNTS for the COMPRESSION
    it accounts for
    the 33 degrees, they SWEAR to you ISN’T

    FRAUD derived.

    It’s derived from PURE fraud and you MUST insist from the FIRST WORD that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to calculate the temperature of the atmosphere PROPERLY
    without USING properly processed gas law.

    You have to get that shit out of the way RIGHT off because it’s the FOUNDATION
    of the justification of claim,
    there’s ANY kind of ”effect”.

    It’s SIMPLY
    fraudulently MIS-calculating
    the temperature of the global Atmosphere
    CREATING a NON existent, ”effect.”

    And listen guys the more you study what I’m telling you about this, the MORE clearly you’re going to see how thoroughly EVERY word of ”the magic gais dun made the cold nitrugin bath, uh.. MAGIC HEEDUR!!”

    is purest,
    purest, fraud.

    Peace guys.

    Remember: be sure to sum up their ”RADIANT EFFECT” argument with ”tell me how many MORE PERCENT light RADIATE OUT from the SUN-WARMED ROCK,

    each time the INSULATION
    makes another percent LESS light radiate IN.”

    You aren’t responsible for ”making their fraud palatable” by ”putting it into terms I like” or whatever the f***k some sophist FAKE tells you to make you start speaking thoughts he wants you to speak.

    These people are con men and they are many of them, very socially misadjusted, uneducated people so it’s important you don’t let them think THEY tricked YOU,
    by dragging YOU off into water so deep,
    an observer COULDN’T TELL who WON.

    Winning against a fraud is humiliating him and the BEST and really ONLY way to do it is find the very FIRST place in his story that fraud erupts and GO from THERE: over and over and over.

    Because – they KNOW what you’re doing. You’re snitching them off to their fan-boys and girls RIGHT in front of their own faces – and THEY don’t LIKE it. So you’re obviously not gonna make friends with the frauds, and furthermore,

    the un-knowing aren’t going to stick up for you either. You have to be capable of wading in there with that ”straightening you hillbillies’ bullshoot the f***k OUT” stick,

    and leave, thoroughly assured that ANY 6TH grader who EVER watches you do that to them – they ARE going to be reading what you say later, YEARS from now, doing reports, etc – they WILL…

    you MUST not despair that this ULTRA simple demolishment of them PAYS the BEST ODDS –

    you need to leave assured that any 6th grader who reads it can understand,

    and any other elementary schooler can see how THOROUGHLY you SHUT them the ____blank__ up, and with such EASE – NEVER cracking a BOOK –

    discourages a government fraud movement.

    The counter sophistry FEEDS the fraud.

    Teaching CHILDREN a six or seven or eight step argument to ridicule and humiliate a teacher, can be done.

    Just as I’ve done here. Be repeating how to get to the VERY first place they are WRONG –

    then explaining WHERE that first error comes from – and INSISTING to everyone that – WITHOUT proper processing using GAS LAW, all their claims are VAPOR – and that when gas law IS properly used so INTERNATIONALLY known global temperature IS reached , and their FRAUD is GONE –
    puts you in FIRM control of the thing

    ONCE you LEARN how they JUMP AROUND changing the SUBJECT

    and how to drag them RIGHT back into the shallow water where the kids can see,
    the science darkening, FRAUDULENT SCAMMING, these government employees and various eco-wacko shit-heads, are drumming into their heads as being ”real science.”

    The SAME way they DRUMMED it into their grand daddy’s and mom’s heads,
    and their OWN daddy’s and moms’ heads,
    and into THEIR heads, that – you guessed it – pot is just like heroin, worse for one than a methyl amphetamine addiction,
    and that they have the

    yew noe: ”Critical Research University Peer Review”

    to prove it.

    You are not going to save your own generation, your generation has been scammed and robbed, bilked and had liberty stolen in the TRiLLioNS just as previous were LIED to SCAMMED,
    had their families torn apart,
    placed in prisons till the DAY people DIED many times – over the

    ”Pot’s like Heroin”

    Government employee GLOBAL chemistry and MEDICAL scam.

    Your previous generation had to deal with overthrowing that and we’re only part way done with that government chemistry scam, designed to literally – LITERALLY rob you, steal you blind, and make you pay money to be taught how to say ‘thank you’ for criminalizing you

    in a chemistry scam.

    And now this generation is facing that chemistry scam
    this one.

    You need to learn about the law and laws that govern the Atmosphere this scam is built around, Those laws really ‘that’ law, is GAS LAW.

    You need to be armed with the truth: not ‘tolerated usage of truth in safe places’ and not ‘you’re not allowed to utter that truth on this government installation.’

    You need to understand about gas law and why it’s needed and you need to be able to talk about that: fluid and proficient, you need to then go on to precisely what happens if one should ignore gas law and claim to be processing gas temperatures WITHOUT using gas law at the proper junctures and going through the FRAUDULENT motion of using Stefan-Boltzmann processing alone.

    What happens is that infamous 33 degree shortfall from something else you need to learn and read about, – the Standard Atmosphere. You need to be able to tell people without reservation that the Standard Atmosphere has not changed one bit since it was adopted as a physical and regulatory Standard now governing our entire combustion and other gas energy related space age.

    When you are actually armed with understanding wtF is going on with the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS that GOVERNS something you aren’t going from reflex, arguing from ”permissible discussion” set for you by frauds, to the NEXT ”permissible discussion.”

    When YOU – even if you’re a welder, even if you’re an ice cream salesman – open up on a buncha frauds telling everyone how and why there even has to be a law governing something,

    what happens when you don’t USE that law,
    how to REPAIR that 33 degree shortfall in the case of Earth’s temperature – start using properly processed gas law in ones’ mathematics –

    there’s not a lot of arguing that can be done except for the frauds to declare that this isn’t about gas law. There are times when you’re gonna learn the things they exclaim are extremely illuminating to others, and you’ll learn to prefer certain tactics in demolishing these people using the proper attacks, for this kind of scam: inversion scams.

    People are going to be extremely filled with anger at you but that just makes it more important to you to become ever more flexible in simply derailing them and going STRAIGHT to their thermodynamics laws violations – both in the extremely simplistic illustrations you KNOW will tip off children, that – these assholes are fakes, committing fraud –

    but then you need to show the mental athleticism that they learn you’re no clown: and the way to prove this best is the way that attacks the fraud at it’s VERY FIRST POINT where it LEAVES proper SCIENCE.

    And, sure enough of course this is ALSO where we see the FAKE term ‘green house gas effect’ invoked, to COVER – this DELIBERATE mis-application of thermodynamic law, deliberately omitting proper processing of gases – compressible phase material with COMPRESSIBLE PHASE LAW.

    As you get older you’re going to yearn to be able to take complete control of these frauds and simply start rubbing their noses in the fact anyone can see they’re several intellectual floors short of a medium sized building.

    You need to have someone trained in fraud busting, tell you how it’s best busted. I am, and i’m letting you all know that one of the things you MUST get good at is the stuff I’m describing above.

    You can’t argue about the laws governing gases
    when you’re completely illiterate in argument around gas LAWS.

    Now – fortunately for you fraud busters, the Ideal Gas Law, actually perfects, it bridges and it unifies all the previous four major gas laws before it, and so your work is ALL that much easier.

    One more trick. I have always noticed that some things go over better spoken kinda everyday speech-wise, and some are better kind of roared, strutted, and swaggered about, when you do it.

    When you discuss the Ideal Gas Law and you link them to the Engineer’s Toolbox – you should – you should also DEMAND they SHOW you ”THEIR CHART,” ”showing how ANY CO2 EVER added to Standard Atmospheric Air, EVER did ANYTHING but LOWER it’s TEMPERATURE.”

    You really need to kick this one into their teeth and just rake every inch of skin off of them using the fact that the Chart of Gas Constants, specifically points out and indeed mathematically MANDATES that CO2 mixed into air, LOWERS it’s temperature.

    Take a lotta time on this one because it always takes the readers awhile to have it sink in how devastatingly lacking in ANY fucking answer, the FRAUDS are, REGARDING this FACT.

    You can have TREMENDOUS success if you become articulate and able to discuss gas law, when you’re – hey go fuckin’ figure, fellas – discussing FRAUD or TRUTH, related to GAS LAW.

    Because you have to not just be a snotty arrogant winner: you have to educate people who will NEVER have the time to be able to study all you’ve studied and you’ve got to show those UNEDUCATED MILLIONS and THOUSANDS and ok hundreds who come by, and read what you write, that – they can argue with these bastards. They can because you can. The readers seeing you really DO know all about gas law – their ain’t much to it, fellas, so don’t melt down – they’re ALSO gonna see that not ONE single SOUL among the FRAUDS,
    can even NAME the gas law – governing all these GAS energy, gas LAW GOVERNED, claims.

    It’s very, very important to each and every one of you who hope to have ANY feelings of personal competency in simply knocking a.n.y. defender of this on the planet, RIGHT out

    with a quick and authoritative dissertation on – ‘something’ – it’s VERY important you realize that inversion fraud has a specific track to derailing it instantly and permanently. It’s for you the discoverer of it to trace back to the v.e.r.y. first thermodynamic/mathematical violations, and just start demolishing it ALL, from RIGHT there.

    * Watch what I tell you *

    Any other tack,
    and you are perpetuating the fraud.

    You might want to have some specialty. Inversion frauds depend on this and keeping you on that – for days, weeks, around and around – and NOT going RIGHT away to the FIRST proof they can’t even fucking count, and the first error in their scam is that ”non usage of gas law in claimed computation of gas temperatures.”

    It leads INSTANTLY to the great altar of their sacrifice of scientific integrity, CLAIM there is some kind of ”green house effect.”

    No cold gas bath is a heater.
    No insulation mixed into said cold bath, functioning as a light blocking agent and simultaneous phase change refrigerant for both the object in the bath, AND the bath, heats them.

    Every single word of this scam is BASEST fraud and as you can all see, I have described precisely where the very first fraudulent accounting of energy happens in this SCAM and I’ve told you how it’s remedied: motherfuckers are supposed to use the right phase-of-matter LAW, and in the proper steps, for calculating temperature of matter of specific phase: in this case compressible phase material is being ‘calculated’ by DELIBERATELY OMITTING the LAW addressing compressible phase matter’s specific, intrinsic physical characteristics.

    NONE of it is true. In fact I started this second post today with the reminder to you that there’s a way to cut through all their RADIATION type bullshit, so everyone who isn’t educated enough to play the game,
    knows who’s winning the fuckin’ game.

    YOU are. And you prove this to them by simply DEMANDING they TELL you in CLEAR terms,

    ‘how much more light radiates out of the planet,
    for every percent LESS light, the magical gassiness,
    lets radiate IN?

    Less goes IN,
    MORE comes OUT, tell me NOW: HOW much MORE comes OUT, each time another percent LESS,
    goes IN?

    Be sorta arrogant and scoffing with this and don’t apologize, and outright accuse them of scurrying around like a rat, from a woman with a broom: tell them, ”I understand clearly, you told me, the insulation making 20% less light radiate IN
    is making that 20% PLUS some that never goes in,
    radiate OUT. MY QUESTION is HOW much more energy radiates OUT
    each time the green house gases cause another percent energy to radiate IN?

    You have to be very sure of yourself because people, when caught out in the open with the whole thing so EASILY reduced to scorned stupidity, go into crafty, time-buying, denial. And they’ll go around and around but you make them TELL you,

    for every percent energy that does NOT radiate IN
    because the magical gassiness refracted it to space,
    how much MORE radiates OUT? And where is it coming from?”

    They’ll claim ”yew doan’t noe, yew ain’t smart” but it’s ALL they’ve got and this goes on awhile, but don’t you EVER let them off the hook about understanding their ”radiant transfer” situation.

    Cold insulation makes less light go into a light warmed rock,
    they claim that light not going in,
    makes the rock 33 degrees warmer,
    and that if you put more insulation in the bath,
    so less light gets to the rock and warms it,
    more light will warm the rock and leave it.

    Demand they explain that to you in clear and concise terms until they fold, it’s just that simple. There’s no standing up to this argument about their ”radiant warming” so you need to be CRYSTAL clear that – their VIOLATION of CONSERVATION of ENERGY – is CRYSTAL clear.

    Make it clear in your speech that – this isn’t just obvious to you, and the LUNK-HEADS you’re revealing as scum-sucking, fraud-barking math molesters and pseudo-scientific maggots,

    but to the dozens, scores,
    who are coming by to read how you’re laying them open,
    and who never say a word about what they saw you doing – there.

    Remind them that everyone is seeing their obvious, flagrant violation of Conservation of Energy, and go over it repeatedly as well in your various fraud bustings, that a CHILD can easily see it’s a violation of Conservation of Energy.

    Frauds despise it when you mention that you can make children contempt their stupidity.

    I bid you all again the very best and happiest fraud busting of your lives. I’m telling you all this

    because I want you to read it, absorb it, and arm the young people – and the adults of your world – with what I’m telling you.

    Make it wide and common knowledge that you don’t need a degree in this or that,

    to defeat this flagrant

    pseudoscientific fakery,

    All you need is to just know the fundamentals of gas law
    and gas thermodynamics.

    And this brings to bear yet another arrow in your fraud busting gear: mock them at why ”your handlers” won’t let you learn about gas law. Why don’t they teach you anything about gas law.”

    Tell them outright, ”because they know you’re gullible hicks, they educated you to be those, in the same chair they programmed your grandpa to nod that oh yeah, that pot,
    is just like heroin; worse for him than a methyl amphetamine addiction,
    and that they had the critical scientific peer review to put him in prison,

    ”denying the science.”

    The final punch line to this one is that ”The reason they keep you too stupid to even name the law governing what you’re claiming, is because the gas law GOVERNING atmospheric and gas termperatures forbids your FAKERY not just in the equation,
    where it proves itself capable of dealing with pressure, volume, mass, etc – which Stefan-Boltzmann isn’t a process for, and doesn’t provide process for –

    but also in the # # SECOND PART of the LAW # # the CHART of Gas Energy Constants.

    Link to that chart a lot

    and ask the frauds in front of other readers

    ”why their Church is teaching them CO2 can warm air when the law right there specifically, mathematically MANDATES that addition of CO2 to ANY volume of air, MUST lower it’s temperature?”

    You kinda gotta know what makes the whole place just go quiet as a fucking mouse, and that’s one of them.

    Taunt them and DARE them and tell them they had BETTER SHOW YOU their OWN CHART of LAW decreeing that CO2 holds more energy than Air, and it’s addition TO air, can WARM it because the REAL Chart

    states CLEARLY: their Church is violating thermodynamic law,

    JUST in the CLAIM
    that adding CO2,
    to Standard air mix,
    can warm it.

    *THE LAW
    has a CHART,
    assigning CO2 the LESSER energy constant.*

    You need to flesh that all out in your OWN terms obviously

    but there’s only a certain number of ways to saying anything from ”Welcome to United” to ”Mann Overboard!” so don’t try to be endlessly creative – except in your capacity to simply BEWILDER the entire GROUP


    after GAS LAW related
    fact & observation.

    Then of course you start going back and forth with the ”show me the cold bath that heated an object,” routine – which of course they CAN’T.


    And you need to tell them that

    they’re just the bunch of hicks whose Church’s so-called ”best scientific minds”
    can’t even properly calculate the temperature of the Global Atmosphere right.

    Ok now I promise to leave you all in peace to read this and hopefully, investigate what I’m telling you.

    Remember these words: Engineer’s Toolbox.

    This will remind you where to find the ”Chart of Gas Constants”
    which is the 2nd half of the
    governing gas hence Atmospheric temperatures.

    The Law has two parts,
    The Law unifies and abridges the FOUR MAJOR GAS LAWS PRECEDING IT,

    The equation, PV = nRT, exists, to ACCOUNT for PRESSURE (PV is ‘Pressure times Volume)

    and the reason their Church can’t calculate gas temps right is they don’t account for PRESSURE,

    and then in the SECOND SIDE of the LAW,
    there’s a specific chart, singling out CO2 vs Air,
    assigning CO2, the LOWER ENERGY Constant:

    meaning any time CO2 is added to Air, the LAW GOVERNING THAT MANDATES the CO2’s presence, LOWERS the temperature of the MIX.

    A final word of advice on using gas law to demolish fraud barking hicks.
    Actively train yourself to chase them down BOTH paths with the LAW.

    This brings back up (for you) OVER and OVER the fact that they don’t know a F&***G thing about their even BEING a LAW for this –
    BECAUSE- THEY’RE being kept in the DARK,

    because to TEACH them the LAW governing the Atmosphere’s temperature,

    would be to SHOW them that the LAW is necessary, taking care of the PRESSURE or COMPRESSION warming element of gas temperature calculation,


    it forbids CO2 addition
    resulting in a warmer atmospheric gas mix.

    I realize that I am kinda dropping a lot of things on you guys at one time. But I do have a valid point in asserting to you all that – there’s a reason, you never hear a PEEP from these people about GAS LAW and the fact there HAS to BE one.

    And, of course the very NEXUS of the scam’s original version is that – GAS LAW is deliberately OMITTED in pseudo-calculation of Earth’s and other planets’ global atmospheric temperatures,
    SPECIFICALLY to CREATE this ERRONEOUS ARTIFACT – in Earth’s case, the now infamous ”33 degrees of warming”

    alleged to be because of ”green house gases”

    when in fact this 33 degree ERROR

    is simply the deliberate, intentional REFUSAL to ACCOUNT for the compression warming

    intrinsic to temperatures of gases.

    The INSTANT and REPEATED reference to gas law by yourself,

    puts you in position to cut their bullshit off RIGHT there

    at the VERY first ERROR.

    Once you have asserted the correct facts, you are fully within your rights to simply tell any of them, at any time, ”you go back and get some mathematics that match those used in arriving at the International Standard Atmosphere. Until you do that, you’re just so stupid you can’t even calculate the temperature of our OWN global atmosphere right – much less Venus’ or Mars, or wherever.”

    This finally brings up Venus.
    They do the identical thing with Venus, when in fact, the temperature of Venus is RIGHT on the MONEY where the Gas Law mandates those temperatures be, at those pressures, with that amount of sunlight.

    When you have all this straight regarding Earth, try to be able to extend what I’m telling you to include the temperature on Venus as well because Venus is of course the FRAUDS’ Mother Ship and Icon of Magical Gassiness.

    All of you need to read this page, and you also, if you’re interested in discussing Atmospheric energy, need to kinda pore through this man’s writings and observations on Atmospheric temperatures.

    The man is some kind of science/science fiction writer and a physicist who noted some years ago that the entire claim of there being a ”green house effect on Venus” is simply falsehood.

    His name is Harry Huffman and I’ve read through all of his work regarding gases and I haven’t found any flaws in what he says about them and the solving of their mass/energy relationships.

    You need to understand, why no one in the Magic Gas Brigade, will E.V.E.R. MENTION G.A.S. LAW, and your understanding needs to be heavily weighted toward being able to discuss all this stuff very clearly in front of a lot of people.

    There are many many people who understand the truths related to this scam intuitively because they take REAL
    GASL LAW-RELATED courses: courses like Welding: courses like S.C.U.B.A. diving. Courses like piloting an aircraft, and courses like the biology of creatures that live in water.

    The GOAL of the Magic Gas Brigade is to KEEP this SCAM’s PARTICULARS, as EXCLUSIVE and OUT of the MAINSTREAM as POSSIBLE.

    They KNOW that the MORE people weigh in, the more OBVIOUS it is, they’re barking FRAUD.

    So – whether you guys know it or not your job isn’t to be as sophisticated as possible but your job is actually to teach the welders of the world,
    how to teach their own kid,
    to mock a government employee to scorn, RIGHT there in class; and the BEST way for you to do that is to simplify, simply, simply, and CUT the frauds off RIGHT there – AT the VERY FIRST PLACE
    their DIALOGUE
    starts DEPENDING on you, the Welder, the S.C.U.B.A. diver’s, the guy’s kid –


    is in the mis-calculation of global atmospheric temperature, and of gas temperatures in general, using Stefan-Boltzmann alone, instead of using the actual Gas Law written to help quantify these matter/energy relationships properly.

    If you can train yourself to FOCUS on this you’re gonna be very very surprised how swiftly you can entirely shut out an entire forum of those effing frauds.

    And in fact if you think I’m exaggerating this, bear in mind that the entire FIELD of believers in this shit, had their reputations TRASHED NOT just when they were all caught REPEATEDLY barking fraudulent bullshit,

    but when they actively went on the attack, SUPPRESSING ANYONE EVEN MENTIONING THE WAYS, this shit VIOLATES THERMODYNAMIC LAW(S).

    The reasons are now – obviously to you guys, clear, and hopefully MORE clear after my hours of typing, and Joseph’s having to wonder if I’ll ever s.t.F.u.

    I will guys, I promise. But it’s just important that – you guys, the Slayers proper, are THE SPEARHEAD against these people.

    And I’ll bet there’s not a single one among ya who were actually raised, in the professional field, of BUSTING chemistry frauds.

    I was.

    And I’ve waited respectfully many years as you guys all gave it your best go, I’ve given it mine, but at some point I think it becomes kinda important for me to explain to you all, what I know about this,

    how it is I came to know it, and just basically, why I’m even interested in this.

    I hope I’ve explained all of that, well enough that it satisfies you all.

    I don’t really feel like I have the energy to run a blog and go around playing chase with these fraudulent assholes any more, I’m old now and came into busting this scam, on the back end of having worked in busting several other fraudulent chemistry scams online, before the Magic Gas Fraud took off like all thievery arranged by government employees.

    It’s really important that you understand what I’m saying to you when I tell you that * you trying to devise ever more sophisticated proofs against this, IS THE SCAM THEY WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN. KEEPING YOU TALKING ABOUT IT


    Making you LEAVE proper fraud busting protocol – find the very first incidence of fraud in the narrative and demolish it from there – IS THE PROTOCOL for THEM.

    Their entire JOB involves MAKING YOU TALK about EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN
    so they can continually tell you that you haven’t thought about it long and hard enough.. and another government grants/pay cycle goes by and you just keep talkin.

    You REAL goal should be to expose them as frauds so as wide and ultimately, uneducated an audience as possible, can see CLEARLY – not just that these people are WRONG – but that they can MOCK them and do so with the contemptuous impunity someone mocking a FRAUD,
    ought to be able to mock them in.

    These people are like the government employees who enslaved the entire inhabitants of the world to the ”pot’s like heroin” scam. They don’t HAVE a conscience, they depend on YOU having one, they can MANIPULATE.

    You are NOT dealing with harmless, well meaning ”sciencie” types. You are dealing with the V.E.R.Y. same P.E.O.P.L.E.

    who have ruined HOW many – seriously, how many?? lives, with that ”Pot’s like Heroin, worse for you than Methyl Amphetamine” scam.

    Think of the children, the adults, the men, the women, the black people, the brown people, singled out, assaulted, robbed, and made to pay entire YEARS of their CHILDREN’S SURVIVAL monies on ”counseling’ for ‘not realizing pot is like heroin’.

    This is serious business and the more we blunt this as early as possible, the less suffering by people after we’re gone, who have no IDEA how this scam all KICKS OFF.

    We must tell the world how this scam is processed, and where its’ origins lie

    Joseph, you guys – you’re the Slayers. I know you must not have many professional grade fraud busters among you because you guys proceed forth like honest men, and fraud busting requires you be some exceptionally savvy, and difficult to manipulate people.

    You gotta be honest but you gotta be shrewd as a freakin horse trader because you are arguing FOR people who haven’t been born. They’re gonna wanna develop arguments to what obviously seems like fraud but they can’t pin it down.

    I’m telling you all I know about how to defeat these inversion frauds because I happen to have been iinvolved in fraud busting as a kid, and the parameters for actually STOPPING them from bringing their fraud up again,

    aren’t the same ones,

    for just defeating them and ‘showing them you are smart.’

    When you’re comparing intellectual penises with these assholes, that’s what they WANT.
    They WANT you to spend weeks, months, YEARS figuring it out.

    They DON’T want you mocking them to their faces that they are telling stories so acutely, transparently fraudulent and in violation of Conservation of Energy (I think that’s the first time I’ve actually properly capitalized that phrase, if such capitalization is actually legit)

    that you can show a child. THEIR child. THEIR wife, if she or the kid should look over their shoulder, and see the ludicrous shit they’re saying.

    Again Happy Holidays Slayers. I salute you Joseph and your, and the other Slayers’ efforts.

    Do not let the thousands of characters I have typed into this machine, go to waste. Learn how to argue these points, in terms that involve you

    teaching the world,

    where GAS LAW is left OUT to create their scam temperature calculations,
    and where Stefan-Boltzman FRAUD is claimed to be able to be used in substitution for properly processed gas thermodynamics.

    These people specialize in creating a NEED in you to be perceived as ‘smart like them.’ They’re NOT smart: they’re FRAUDS and that’s just pure criminality posing as honesty.

    What you – all of you who can master it – need to do, is learn to spread the word the whole thing’s a fraud, very much the way I’m telling you. Joseph Postma can not do this all for you. You shouldn’t be AFRAID of discussing gas law as I’ve outlined it’s application to you, so that you can educate people about the REAL fundamentals of gases and their temperatures, and how that’s all sorted out.

    Anyway. Now I go the way of all the men whose wives own a second home in the country: out in the yard, to do some Honey Dew work: Honey Do this, Honey Do that, Honey, I bought a new car, we’re gonna have to turn up the production on my properties a little bit so we can pay for it, and that means you, going outside and getting to work.

    Which I’m doing, right now.

    Adieu, chaps. Remember: don’t let the bastards grind you down.

  65. That post was ridiculously long. (^_^)

  66. Gary Ashe says:

    I have just asked a ”how does a cold photon know it is a cold photon” guy over there,

    ”How do the photons know not to thermalise when being exchanged at equilibrium”, that is to the Tonyb fella, and his how do cold photons know they are cold sophistry.

  67. They “know” because they are a frequency! WTF is wrong with these goblins!?

  68. Gary Ashe says:

    Are they Joe ?.
    I read that the science name for radiation is a resonance, now i know that means frequency but is correct terminology, doesn’t resonance hem them in more, ”resonant wave” what do you think, photons of a resonant wave, what do think ?.

  69. Gary Ashe says:

    Did i use it here correctly….

    Paul you only ever have in-flight photons in the chamber they never stop, a minute bit of free flux yet to impinge and replace, photons containing a fraction of the radiation’s resonance from the warmer block.

    The thermal resonance of both blocks are near identical if you make the temperature differential 1 kelvin only, all outward emitted fluxes replace all outward fluxes it really is that simple, the blocks are virtually identical a 0.3% temperature differential the chamber back ground is 0 kelvin., [magically].

    A is replacing B’s emission, and B is replacing A’s emission, at the same time, virtually instant, however B’s emission and Only B’s s radiating resonance contains some slightly more curried up photons that thermalise.

  70. Allen Eltor says:

    Gary lower frequency energy can’t enter into a region of an object already leaking energy of that frequency concentration, or greater.

    However what that energy does do, is stop energy from leaking out of the object it approaches and strikes.

    Energy migration through a solid object happens because of energy’s propensity to operate on a principle directly comparable to a pressure gradient. If you have two batteries, one full charge, one a little under full, they both equalize out to about 95% charge apiece, instead of the ‘one full, one at 90%’ or whatever levels they’re first taken into consideration at.

    Energy leaks.

    It leaks, because electrons, contacting each other, leak energy to each other in that kinda legendary equalization process that ultimately, arrives at the thermodynamical laws referring to entropy.

    Entropy involves the fact that forces, where they can – where there’s a path – equalize. And when a photon strikes matter, the electron that entangles that photon, also has many other electrons, very nearby it – ya know how gases expand 800 + or – times in general when they form, and when the substances the gases are made of cool they contract – and they then become …. liquid, or solid, just classically speaking,

    – these electrons which had been free to re-alighn themselves and avoid each other as gases, in these idealized spherical molecular displacements,

    they’re now jammed into a space, 800 times smaller hence our referencing lattices in solids.

    Well – when your local photon smashes into an exposed facet of a solid object that photon is basically a quantity of charge: energy.

    And every single electron around that initially entangling electron, that has lower energy concentrations ringing around with it – when it gets right there beside the MORE charged electron,

    the light leaks over to the LESS charged one – at the speed of light, of course, and the amount that leaks over, is a function of

    how close they actually come,
    the angles at which then close on each others’ paths.

    Generally. You’re talking in fact Gary if you’ll remember, about the very same effect, as when some pulse runs down a wire, and as it goes down the wire,

    wires nearby pick up, bleed down that pulsed signal, till – ostensibly – they’re all equal. Obviously in real life it’s a bit more involved but it’s most certainly that same, ”90 degree bump to the side” effect we discover everywhere we use electricity and electronics.

    These entities engage in this ”90 degree displacement to the side” of other charged entities, due to the fact they all are embued with the effect characteristic known as ‘spin.’

    Electrons and photons entangle related to these spin identities due to this spinning spheres mathematic, that defines all energy mathematics related to energy in motion.

    When the higher frequency, the more concetrated energy photon slams into an object and gets entangled,

    before you can even spit and reach for your switch blade, the other electrons are already sapping energy off this locus of energy charge. The INSTANT it resonates on one of the electrons and ceases rebounding, re-aligning itself in process of that ’90 degree to the side deflection’ characteristic energy exhibits – when it can’t spin away through mutual-force repulsion, like magnets do, because it’s held much more fast and unable to re-align itself upon coming into resonance with the first electron it encounters positioned to trap it, to entangle it –

    the other electrons on the surface layer are flying by there pinging against the path of that first electron and they each of them, leach off some of the energy the charged electron has, until – once again, they’re all equally charged. At this point, they don’t hand off energy to each other because there’s no unction, there’s no inequality, to create any gradient for leakage.

    In school you’re always having people remind you of that atrocious comparison, ”it’s like you have a tank of water and it floods, outside the tank. Even if a hole forms in the tank under the water there if the two water levels are identical, there’ll be (effectively, hypothetically) zero pressure differential, so THAT aspect of leakage creation isn’t part of any leakage that does occur.

    It’s just like this when electrons have entangled light and are handing off the electromagnetic energy that light comprises to each other, through this leakage.

    Once all have equal charge, they aren’t ‘constantly handing energy off to each other’ in some kind of throughput mechanism, that all equals out so it’s an apparent, and mathematical zero-flow energy mechanic.

    No. Each has resonated some energy and since none has a higher concentration of energy they aren’t handing off.

    See what I’m saying? There has to be pressure for flow to occur, in energy mechanics, there has to be a pressure differential for there to be flow, too: just having energy pressure can’t create flow,

    the same way having pressure on two ends of a tug o war game. Pressure on the ends of the rope,

    is NOT equal, to the rope moving ‘so faist thim mathumatdicks cain’t evun keap up, YaW!’ as per

    magic gas fraud.

    No, equal pressure on both sides of the rope, means that centerline of tape strapped around the centerpoint, right over that line on the ground when the game begins, IS NOT MOVING.

    When energy is being emitted from an object, the concentration of energy outside that object is the source of a differential there, as well. There’s energy in the object, there’s energy coming into the object from say, another end of an iron bar –

    these electrons, are all compacted in this iron substance, this crystalline substance, and – as they hand energy off to each other, eventually there’s a distribution of energy and some’s leaking out of the other end of the bar,

    down on this end where we’re looking at it and measuring whether there’s as HIGH a concentration of energy out in free space, slamming into the exposed facets of those end molecules’ electrons.

    Ok – if there’s energy, concentrated enough that it’s equal to that concentration in the iron bar, energy stops leaking out.

    Oh yes, it does, because the energy coming to that very last electron, from within the iron bar, doesnt’ have any place, for light to leak out, because there’s no pressure differential.

    Remember the free, incoming electron, will simply rotate and bounce off if it’s not entangled with the electromagnetic moment of the electron it entangles on.

    The people in my field, radiant communications and it’s associated electronic engineering, are the people who quantified each step of this relationship in energy hand-off, using microwave resonances.

    Microwave is when the frequency of the energy disruptions you create are so fast, they don’t cling to material any more at all – you can fire them down a hollow pipe, and instead of being absorbed by this metal pipe as one generally expects – metal conducts electomagnetic energy and all this,

    you have this effect where you can create these electromagnetic field disruptions and just let them leak out of an antenna: that’s radio, and when you get the frequencies so fast that the time a light-speed charge can move by the time you turn it off again, then back on – these wavelengths are so short that your’e literally using a tiny, tiny pin, the size of a sewing pin and shorter – a half inch, etc – as an antenna, on a radio.

    That’s – that’s what it is. And when you fire it down a hollow pipe, this pipe’s called your ”waveguide” now. And you can place instrumentation all along the path of this radio wave you propagate down the pipe there and figure out,
    EXACTLY what’s happening,
    because where there’s nothing being detected by your instruments, energy isn’t there,
    and where you ARE detecting it, energy IS there.

    Ok well after WWII there were a lotta people who’d been exposed to high technology and all these men educated in physical sciences, wanted to get college degrees, and of course governments were always looking to fund research on making their communications more secure, more reliable, more long reached, more this, less that… and a LOT of research was DONE in microwave,

    because microwave,
    is also, – same frequencies, kids –

    motherf****rs and

    is how you stop your local nuclear bomber,
    from coming over and ruining your party.

    So after wwii you had RADAR being investigated in every single aspect any of you and all of you can imagine,
    and you also had microwave communications proper, being investigated to try to make that end of the world a more prosperous, fantastic place.

    And there were just scores of grants handed out in universities w.o.r.l.d.w.i.d.e. and with the number of the professors all being military men,
    and SO many of these men being strongly aligned to patriotic ends due to the competing global political powers being on the back end of WWII,

    these universities where most of this research was being done,

    like a sieve.

    They leaked, like sieves, because there were telephones everywhere, now. There was all kinds of extra military radio equipment and amateur radio equipment and you just can not stop, adventurous young men and women from trying to contact each other and talk shop about interesting scientific research.

    And so what happened was men and women fired thousands of shots of microwave/radar frequency energy down these waveguides, and they figured out that it’s indeed, exactly what the mathematics say, about energy flow. Where the mathematics say there is zero flow, there is zero flow:

    because the mathematics,

    regarding energy flow,

    are predicated on the concept of concentration differential – pressure, kids – and that’s all there is to it.

    So that’s what the real energy transfer mechanism is: when there is energy concentration slamming into a spot, energy of that frequency and below will not emit.

    It will not be absorbed, either and it bounces off.

    And in this way they offset each others’ mathematic precisely,

    and since the electronic regions where light COULD entangle are full, and are ostensibly full because there is presently energy supply to account for that –

    free photons can NOT slam their way into that lattice of electrons which are already charged with energy and can not simply deflect,

    with the massless ease,
    the incoming free photon can deflect.

    If this is the aspect of light entering and leaving things you’re discussing, there’s zero question, of what’s happening because the microwave and radar people after WWII sorted all this out – and hey there’s actually a kinda test question REGARDING this VERY matter in radiant communications.

    The question is why isn’t there a single, well known paper, with a couple of peoples’ names, who seemed to simply soar above everyone else in fleshing out all this matter-energy handling,

    verifying that the mathematics associated with energy, and energy conservation/transfer etc – are in fact, correct out to as far as anyone would care to try to take them?

    The answer to that IS: after WWII universities and private labs too, worldwide, leaked like sieves, and no one could attain any competitive advantage in uncovering the more minute energy handling and transfer characteristics of matter, to the point they could make a name for themselves. Everytime something was discovered anywhere on earth of any import, within just a few minutes at times, people on the other side of the planet could know: and so information about physics flowed like water between all these universities, due to TWO factors intrinsic to humans:

    young students can’t be stopped from gossiping,
    professors were often highly politically motivated and leaked to THEIR sponsors/friends/political handlers, etc.

    We know for a fact from having the mathematics and every other pressure concentrated related entity, that when there IS no charge differential, there IS no FLOW.

    This is not a negotiation. This is the mathematical process associated with energy transfer. If energy transfers there MUST be a reason, and in the wild, just your everyday energy gain/loss transaction,

    any change, MUST be driven by – concentration differential. Otherwise there’s – again pardon the usage of the unusual word, ‘unction’ or incitement to flow.

    That’s how that all goes, and that’s just not ever going to be gotten around.

    Energy can’t push itself inside an object already charged to that concentration, because where pressure concentrations equalize, there’s no source for flow creation.

    Free photons arriving from the outside can’t force their way in, because they operate as rotational, spherical, mathematical entities and they simply deflect on contact with like force: EM trapped, on those electrons, is the identical stuff that’s coming in from outside, from free space, having been emitted by something else.

    Anyway I’m not trying to do anything except inform you that’s how we know, beyond any flickering shadow of doubt, precisely how energy is going into then leaving, surfaces of objects.

    In the microwave research field they called these hollow tubes, these wave guides’ endpoints, ‘cavities’.

    And this leads to the term ‘resonant cavities’ and a lot of others related to that particular aspect of the research, which I did not personally take part in. I simply studied it as part of my curriculum for understanding history of radiant energy, and mankind’s steps in uncovering it’s mechanics.

  71. Allen Eltor says:

    Energy flow is according to pressure gradient. This is especially true in solids where the electromagnetic energy is no longer free, no longer strictly bound by laws of energy class entities, but the energy acts in resonance with physical matter class entities, the electrons.

    This is not hard. Energy only migrates when there is an energy concentration inequality.

  72. Allen Eltor says:

    Sorry Gary I said the wrong thing regarding the wrong question. I’m getting ready to go dig a darn irrigation ditch along one of my fence lines so karma got even with me for interfering in your conversation, – I gotta go dig this ditch lol.

    Physical and Energetic entities in particle physics, follow the mathematics, and tend to occupy the geometries, of


    When people were founding the modern science of sub-atomic physics, they discovered what they learned often around universities, schools, and the students often got balls and compared them to their hypotheses, and it became rapidly clear at some point around the mid 1800s, that

    over and over,

    the actions of every sub-atomic entity and some above that level – gases are kinda notable for this – they act like spheres, and when you USE the mathematics of hypothetical spheres that spin on these entities found in nature,

    you repeatedly,

    come up right.

    As in there is no question at all, what is going on, at that point. These entities are – all of em at the level of the atom – acting as


    The geometries they occupy when you set them in motion, everything about these matters, points to them obeying the mathematics of spinning spheres.

    There is a history to the writing of physics, and when you see the term, ‘ideal’ or ‘idealized’ in early discovery of matter-energy relationships, those people were talking about things that behaved typically, as spherical because this globe like spherical geometry is universally smooth without anything to alter the way it performs amid it’s environment, if you set it into motion and clock what happens to it.

    I saw this said somewhere, regarding trying to understand how these spinning objects could still have some kind of polarity that could vary: you know those spherical globe like balls, they put into the energy shake glasses, the ones that are supposed to help break up the particles?

    When you look at how these are made, you will see that it is actually a spherical coil spring, that has been made in a fashion that’s kinda slick.

    Ok now: you know how if you have one coil spring, and you take a second one, if you throw them into a machine and tumble them, you’re gonna notice that sometimes, the springs will sort of ‘sister’ together, they will entwine, and follow the identical geometry, together.

    This can be done with those completely spherical wire coil springs they put into energy shakes, too, because the principles involved here – two screws, each of spherical shape – there’s a thousand ways to turn these things and they won’t just *click* interleave, mm for mm of wire laying alongside each other, both occupying effectively – just nearly the same damned space, ya know?

    Well – when you’re thinking about how things ‘resonate’ ? This is what they are talking about in a sense. You could take two of these spherical wire mixing balls and put em in a tumbler, and when conditions were right, you could set them resonating together.

    And then when you realize this – being a coil spring they are in fact, a screw, in a sense -they have a polarity, they have spin characteristics based on the shape of a sphere, though…

    under certain conditions, they readily sorta lock together and start to resonate, together in a way that makes it very obvious it’s because they share some very uniquely qualifying characteristics separate from each other, that make them act like they are very much, shaped or somehow constructed, the same way.

    You then come to the point that you could make one of these of metal, but make another one of very lightweight polypropylene

    such that when the two of them begin rebounding around in the tumbler together,

    the physical aspects of the one,
    would predominate in determining how the two of them together, moved.

    This is what your’e talking about in atomic physics like this, Gary: you have a spherical object, that has spin and that spin has a polarity to it. It’s compressible, and – these likenesses just go on and on Gary, but it’s much like the resonance of two coil springs together.

    When you see someone say that phrase about two coil springs, these are the coil spring shape they mean: spherical,
    coil springs.

  73. Allen Eltor says:

    TeRRIBLe phrasing through some of that, sorry.

    ” there’s a thousand ways to turn these things and they won’t just *click* interleave, mm for mm of wire laying alongside each other, both occupying effectively – just nearly the same damned space, ya know?”

    It was supposed to be something like

    … ” there’s a a thousand ways to turn these things and they won’t interleave, but when conditions are right and their complementary spins do interleave, *click* millimeter-for-millimeter of wire, they lay alongside each other, both occupying effectively just damned near the same space.”

    My bad.

  74. Sunsettommy says:

    What I have noticed that since 1979, all the warming shows up when there is an El-Nino, otherwise NO warming at all,which eliminates CO2 completely as a cause of warming,since it doesn’t show up at all in the data.

  75. Sunsettommy says:



  76. I have another example of energy transfer.

    A blow torch flame on a strip of steel. The steel will never get hotter than the flame.
    Add a second torch on the steel. The steel will have a temp, though slightly higher than with one torch, that will still be lower than the flames.
    Add 100 torches, the steel will still never be hotter than the flame. People like Willis seem to think that you can add energy sources to get an accumulative temperature. But the real world doesnt work that way.

  77. Rosco says:

    “A blow torch flame on a strip of steel. The steel will never get hotter than the flame.”
    “People like Willis seem to think that you can add energy sources to get an accumulative temperature.”
    Actually they are even worse than what you say.
    They claim you can reflect the radiation from the heated steel back onto the steel from a foot or more away and this will heat the steel even further.
    They even conducted the most ridiculous set of “experiments” ever undertaken to show they were right whilst all they achieved was to demonstrate they had insufficient intelligence to even realise just how stupid they are !
    Who says radiant emissions are a one to one equivalent to radiant input anyway ?
    None of the science I can find says anything other than radiant emission is proportional to temperature of the emitting object.
    These idiots have it exactly backward – they claim temperature is determined by radiant emissions.
    How can they be so stupid ?

  78. Gary Ashe says:

    Could you put together one complete graph with 98 and 2016 El Nino’s in, and then separated out with the rest of the EN’s as you have above please. [ i want to snip it to my desktop thanks].

  79. Matt in Frisco says:

    I haven’t been on in a bit, but I wanted to make a comment from an avenue that ties in with the general discussion but hopefully adds constructively.
    Effective height of radiation is a real thing, but the proper term to discuss from a physics perspective (not climatology), I believe should be or rather is based on the concept of “mean free path”. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere the mean free path in the relative bandwidths will change (shorten) which will result in a very tiny change in the energy distribution (aka the thermal gradient of the atmosphere) -Note that a change in the distribution does nothing to help the retarded and illusory RGHE (still non-existent). No new energy is added, but as has been pointed out before in JPs last post above, emissions will increase because CO2 is a coolant.
    Short of conducting an atmospheric experiment I would wager that detecting the change in the thermal gradient via dCO2/dT(K) would be incredibly difficult if not impossible. It would need to be done in a lab with significant dCO2 iteration sizes and ranges given it’s small relative Cp in the atmospheric makeup.
    I think what I have said above regarding the change in atmospheric Cp and relative temp gradient has actually been calculated by someone somewhere whose name eludes me at the moment, but he is of like minded opinion from what I recall.
    Found it-
    Note: Name of the gentleman is Nasif Nahle. Calculations he did can be found here:
    Please read his write up for his assumptions and methodology. I believe it is generally correct given the constraints.
    Change he calculated was .006K and I do believe that would probably be unmeasurable in an atmospheric experiment but could be demonstrated in a lab. Just remember that local change in T is not proof of the RGHE, it is only a result of Beer-Lambert. It is just a change in the energy distribution in the atmosphere not an increase in total energy. The majority of the energy doing the work here comes from Terra firma which previously came from the sun (and the portion from radioactive decay, friction etc). Low energy IR is not capable of doing anymore work in the lower atmosphere/dirt to create the fraudulent RGHE.
    The atmosphere is not a magic amplifier, much to the chagrin of the fraudster sophists.
    As usual if I have made any errors JP please correct/point them out.

  80. Matt in Frisco says:

    FYI- Sorry for some reason my browser (Firefox) didn’t update the more recent posts (Allen Eltor’s primarily- love them).
    JPs post I was referencing is stamped-
    2017/11/16 at 7:27 PM

  81. Fizziks is the preferred science of alarmist climatologists. A fizzicist, thus, is a confused blowhard who dwells among the roots and tangles of his/her own delusions. He/she often rebuts and insults logical arguments cast forth by knowledgeable climate-change skeptics, but even the savviest of rational beings knows better than to cross him/her — many are the tales of those who have underestimated this sophistic character. Often mistaken for some manner of expert, the fizzicist commands huge, illogical beasts of deep misunderstanding, and delights in confounding his allies and enemies alike.

  82. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F I Z Z I C I S T

  83. Mark says:

    Epitaph: King Crimson…….

    The wall on which the prophets wrote
    Is cracking at the seams
    Upon the instruments of death
    The sunlight brightly gleams
    When every man is torn apart
    With nightmares and with dreams,
    Will no one lay the laurel wreath
    When silence drowns the screams

    Confusion will be my epitaph
    As I crawl a cracked and broken path
    If we make it we can all sit back
    And laugh
    But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying,
    Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
    Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying

    Between the iron gates of fate,
    The seeds of time were sown,
    And watered by the deeds of those
    Who know and who are known;
    Knowledge is a deadly friend
    If no one sets the rules
    The fate of all mankind I see
    Is in the hands of fools

    The wall on which the prophets wrote
    Is cracking at the seams
    Upon the instruments of death
    The sunlight brightly gleams
    When every man is torn apart
    With nightmares and with dreams,
    Will no one lay the laurel wreath
    When silence drowns the screams

    Confusion will be my epitaph
    As I crawl a cracked and broken path
    If we make it we can all sit back
    And laugh
    But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying,
    Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
    Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
    Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
    Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
    Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
    Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying

  84. Mark says:

    To be continued….. simul nos firmiores ……………alpha +++

  85. Sunsettommy says:

    Gary, those charts are from AndyG55, who post them every time a loon tries to blame the warming on CO2.

    It is a valid point since no CO2 warming can be found ASIDE from El-Nino events, with no warming left over, CO2 has nothing to show.

    CO2 temperature sensitivity appears to be about ZERO.

    It is the Sun, Water Vapor, clouds and the Ocean waters that drives temperature changes. CO2 has nothing to do with weather, as its role lies elsewhere.

  86. Phil Clark says:

    Dear Joe,

    I’m NOT a radiation physics advocate. I prefer the analogy of more than one equal lights illuminating an area. Incremental illumination doesn’t make the area brighter. A very simple illustration of where the radiation physics advocates get it all wrong and much simpler than the usual technical rebuttals.

    Cheers, Phil Clark

  87. Sunsettommy says:

    Joseph, you might find this very interesting!

    Shock Paper Cites Formula That Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2


    “In a new peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal Earth Sciences last December (2017), a Federation University (Australia) Science and Engineering student named Robert Holmes contends he may have found the key to unlocking our understanding of how planets with thick atmospheres (like Earth) remain “fixed” at 288 Kelvin (K), 740 K (Venus), 165 K (Jupiter)…without considering the need for a planetary greenhouse effect or changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”


    “Holmes used the derived pressure/density/mass numbers for each planetary body. He then calculated the planets’ temperatures with these figures.

    Venus’ temperature was calculated to be 739.7 K with the formula. Its measured temperature is 740 K. This indicates that the formula’s accuracy is within an error range of just 0.04% for Venus.”

    This was long pointed out by Nikolov and Zeller:

    WCC4 Rome: Interview with Nikolov and Zeller

  88. squid2112 says:

    CO2 temperature sensitivity appears to be about ZERO.

    Correction: IS ZERO!

  89. CO2 alarmists, thus, need one of these:

  90. … and CO2 alarmists need to answer the question: “On the daylight side of Earth, is CO2 keeping the planet warmer than it would otherwise be?” — I think not. I suppose, then, that the number “2” in the chemical abbreviation refers to this molecule’s double personality — being one thing on the daylight side and another thing on the night side of Earth.

  91. If CO2 has any ability to keep energy in the atmosphere, and that is a big if, then it cannot do that during the day as the earth does not absorb all the energy it can from the sun because of rotation. It rotates out of the sun before the max energy can be absorbed. CO2 hence cannot keep any of that energy in. Only at night is there any possible CO2 retention of energy. (at the polar regions too).

  92. Steve Titcombe says:

    I think that Robert Holmes is our guy 1000Frolly, who explained all this to us in his two brilliant videos (half-way down the discussion thread for Joseph’s other article titled “The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment”). For ease, I’ve linked them again here;


    1000Frolly’s since done another Youtube video where has calculated the CO2 sensitivity is minus 0.02 deg C;

    On TonyHeller’s Youtube channel, both 1000Frolly and Ned Zeller are in deep conversation regarding Tony’s own realisation (for 10-years he claims) that it’s the Atmospheric Pressure Effect – not the Radiative Greenhouse Effect which causes the surface temperature of a planet/moon (that has a troposphere) to differ from the effective S-B temperature of that body. Tony’s video on the subject can be seen at:

  93. How does one molecule per 2500 other molecules of air “keep any energy in”? I see no way, unless it somehow magically energizes, say, 100 molecules of water vapor per that 2500, which then somehow magically energizes the other 2400 molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, and the few others BEYOND the heat capacity of the MIXTURE of atmospheric air as a whole (already operating from the solar input into the whole).

    Here you have this huge number of atmospheric molecules held into a certain density by gravity near Earth’s surface, touching ground and water heated by the sun. The molecules of ground and water move around faster now because of this sun heating. Because gravity holds air molecules near Earth’s surface in a pretty tight arrangement (density), these now sun-energized ground-and-water molecules transfer some of their now faster movement to the gravity-determined air density, to get those air molecules energized (conduction).

    CO2 is a molecular part of this sun-energized ground/water molecular giggling of gravity-determined whole-air density. More precisely, CO2 is 1 molecule per 2500 other molecules taking this ride. It’s radiative uniqueness does little compared to all that other molecular jiggling in which it rides as part of a whole fluid mass, driven by a level of dynamics many orders greater than the subatomic level of photons. At least, this is how I am seeing it now.

  94. Sunsettommy says:

    Robert Holmes is commenting in the above link I provided!

    Look here for his replies to a world class warmist loon, Sebastian.

  95. Sunsettommy says:

    Here is how stupid Sebastian can be,

    “….What you seem to think is that the pressure sets the temperature and the pressure is a result of gravity, right? That was the case when the solar system formed, but the heat from that initial compression of Earths atmosphere is long gone. Like a bicycle tire doesn’t stay warm for long after you pumped it full of air. Gravity isn’t performing any work on a settled atmosphere.”

    My two replies which has not been approved yet:

    “Sebastian writes this idiotic bomb,

    “What you seem to think is that the pressure sets the temperature and the pressure is a result of gravity, right? That was the case when the solar system formed, but the heat from that initial compression of Earths atmosphere is long gone. Like a bicycle tire doesn’t stay warm for long after you pumped it full of air. Gravity isn’t performing any work on a settled atmosphere.”

    First he says the Atmosphere is,……. he he he…. hahahahaha … “settled”
    Second he says Gravity isn’t performing any work on that “settled atmosphere”, which make rational people wonder…..,


    If Gravity isn’t performing any work on the planet……


    I just realized that it is those awesome super CO2 molecules behaving like a sheepdog, keeping the atmosphere from leaving the planet.

    Why didn’t (you) say so, Sebastian?

  96. Gravity isn’t performing any work on a settled atmosphere.

    This seems to be one of the primary claims accompanied by “there are no containing walls against which pressurized gas can act”, … or something like that requiring walls, in order for the gas law to apply.

    I’m not sure how to formally address these claims mathematically, but common sense tells me that solid walls are not needed. If gravity is always acting to hold the atmosphere down, then what is it doing if not work to keep the atmosphere from flying away? The atmosphere looks “settled”, because gravity WORKS to make it look this way, … right?

  97. Joseph E Postma says:

    The adiabatic gradient is a thing. It exists. It’s real. It’s calculable. It’s measurable. To deny THAT is retarded. Convection exists. Air rises and falls. Molecules rise and fall.

  98. Well, shock of all shocks, this has also made it into the latest discussion of WUWT, and, as you might guess, the lead person bashing this is Willis.

    I don’t have enough experience with the ideas to counter him convincingly, but I guess I’ll give it a shot. I’m amazed that Anthony allowed this discussion over there at all. Oh, but WIllis brought it up, and he’s a rock star there, so thanks, Willis, it took a rock star to get this to fly with Anthony.

    If you have time, zoom on over to WUWT and see what’s being said. … lots of opposition, … some reference to slaying dragons. I’m trying to play with the kiddies, but they’ve got so much more play time in this game than moi. I could use a hand.

  99. Gary Ashe says:

    Wouldn’t the other 99% of the atmosphere have to stay warmer than the 1% that is optically active at anytime, how does the 99% transfer its energy to the 1% if the 1% is warmer Robert.

  100. Matt in Frisco says:

    I have not been on WUWT with any regularity since leaving their ridiculous behavior and ignorance many years ago. I did go and check out the discussion; particularly Willis’ response which was logically speaking- baseless nonsense. He is a smart fellow, but he lacks formal discipline and this is what gets him where he is, because he lacks the ability to formulate a reality based ontology, so is easily brought into very confounding rationalizations. It is the same for many of the commenters. One of the many reasons I stopped wasting my time there. The infinite pile of blather that follows in the commentary is just more of the same. I did see a few people attempting to have meaningful discussion, but they are bowled over by the pigs and the mud. It is a bottomless pit.

    It is difficult to convince people that believe devoutly in unicorns that there are none. At some point reality will outweigh the ignorance and things will be set right, but history is filled with horrific events that litter the in between, while reality catches up to the adherents of sophistry.

    Short story is yes the IGL puts in inescapable dispute the RGHE. Something that many folks over the years have pointed out only to be rebuffed by the unicorn hunters. Like all great fishermen they have marvelous stories and little evidence.

    Groupthink is a term they should seek to understand in how it is destroying their ability to think.

  101. I’m trying to craft a reasonably intelligent, non-combative response to Willis over at WUWT. To support his claims, he recently posted a link to one of his earlier articles that supposedly shows that theories like those of Nikolov and Zeller can be reduced to contradiction.

    He seems to think he did this in one paragraph, which I have made a first effort to analyze, as follows:

    So let us assume that we have the airless perfectly evenly heated blackbody planet that I spoke of above, evenly surrounded by a sphere of mini-suns. The temperature of this theoretical planet is, of course, the theoretical S-B temperature.

    Okay, the S-B (Stephan Boltzmann) temperature of the AIRLESS, perfectly heated blackbody planet has the reference surface for defining the SB temperature at ground level.

    Now suppose we add an atmosphere to the planet, a transparent GHG-free atmosphere.

    Well, when you do this, do you not change the structure of the original blackbody? Haven’t you added more mass and increased the radius of the AIRLESS blackbody, and, thus, now have CHANGED the REFERENCE SURFACE that defines the SB temperature of this effectively NEW blackbody with a different radius and different reference surface for the SB temperature?

    The SB temperature, then, no longer refers to the original airless surface, but now refers to a surface somewhere between the original surface and higher up in the now added atmosphere.

    If the theories of N&K and Jelbring are correct, the temperature of the planet will rise.

    Well, yes, because now there is a mass of gas, where there was no such mass on the airless planet, and we can measure the effects of such a gas surrounding the planet in a real world.

    But when the temperature of a perfect blackbody planet rises … the surface radiation of that planet must rise as well.

    Here’s where I see confusion. The temperature of the AIRLESS blackbody has NOT risen. Rather, the addition of a mass of gas around a once airless sphere has created a DIFFERENT blackbody, with a DIFFERENT reference surface that radiates to space. The radiation of the planet with air is now greater, but it radiates, NOT at the airless surface, but higher up now, over a DIFFERENT, greater surface area. More radiation can happen, because the now higher-up spherical-shell defining the surface of this radiation has MORE AREA. Also, other processes are happening in this new mass addition that were not happening in the counterpart minus this new mass.

    And because the atmosphere is transparent, this means that the planet is radiating to space more energy than it receives.

    No, this is an error in thinking, propagated by the consequencies of treating the first blackbody — an AIRLESS planet — as though it were the second blackbody — now WITH AIR. The original airless planet is no longer the original airless planet radiating. A different planet is now radiating — a planet WITH air.

    Again, I do not see the two black bodies as the same blackbody. I also do not see the temperature of the air as the same metric as the temperature of the blackbody. If adding an atmosphere is significant, then the geometry (radius, surface area) that conceptually defines this addition has physical consequencies (i.e., a higher-up reference surface for the blackbody, … a greater surface area from which radiation radiates, … and a temperature within the gas, measured with instruments, that is NOT the temperature of the blackbody surface figured mathematically with a formula).

    This is an obvious violation of conservation of energy, so any theories proposing such a warming must be incorrect.


    I’m thinking that this might be more a confusion of reference frames, so any theories opposing such a warming might be intolerant of looking deeper.

    (Not So Fast)

    Is this completely ignorant on my part, or is this a reasonable response to Willis’ arguments?

    Thanks for input.

  102. Sunsettommy says:

    Holmes doesn’t use Volume in his equations, thus the blackbody argument doesn’t apply here.

    “Holmes has argued that the average temperature for 8 planetary bodies with thick (0.1 bar or more) atmospheres can be precisely measured with “extreme” accuracy — an error range of just 1.2% — by using a formula predicated on the knowledge of 3 parameters: “[1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere.”

    Holmes used the derived pressure/density/mass numbers for each planetary body. He then calculated the planets’ temperatures with these figures.”


    “[T]he hypothesis being put forward here is that in the case of Earth, solar insolation provides the ‘first’ 255 Kelvin – in accordance with the black body law [11]. Then adiabatic auto-compression provides the ‘other’ 33 Kelvin, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin. The ‘other’ 33 Kelvin cannot be provided by the greenhouse effect, because if it was, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not then work to accurately calculate planetary temperatures, as it clearly does here.
    It is apparent that this simple formula calculates the ‘surface’ temperatures of many planetary bodies in our Solar System accurately (Figure 2).

    Specifically, those which have atmospheres thick enough to form a troposphere (i.e. possessing an atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa or 0.1bar). These are: Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Uranus and Neptune. All calculated temperatures are within 1.2% of the NASA reported ‘surface’ temperature (except for Mars, which is excluded because it has a much lower atmospheric pressure than 10kPa).

    This accuracy is achieved without using the S-B black body law, or the need to include terms for such parameters as TSI levels, albedo, clouds, greenhouse effect or, for that matter, adiabatic auto-compression. All that is required to be able to accurately calculate the average near-surface atmospheric temperature, is the relevant gas constant and the knowledge of three variable gas parameters.”

  103. Correct. The fact that warm air rising and cooling then falling proves gravity is continuously doing work on the atmosphere. There is no such thing as a “settled” atmosphere. That can only happen if there is no circulation nor convection.

  104. My bolding of text keeps getting removed, where I am trying to make distinctions between what another person says and what I say in response. In my last comment, the bolding showed when I first submitted the post, but now I look at it, and there is NO distinction between what I quote Willis as saying and what I would be saying in response.

    I guess the issue I am trying to resolve involves the application of the S-B formula. It seems odd to me that a person can apply the formula to a body with no atmosphere, next add an atmosphere, and then apply the formula ONLY to the original body, when the characteristics of the original body (via addition of atmosphere) have been modified. How can the S-B formula be used, as though the atmosphere does NOT exist with the atmosphere’s own dynamics (known or unknown)?

    How is it permissible that the S-B calculation can just ignore the atmosphere as a component of the system for which it is supposedly calculating a surface temperature? The body in question is the planet AND its atmosphere, … NOT just the planet and “never-mind-the-atmosphere-because-the-SB-formula-cannot-account-for-atmospheres.” The “surface” of the system is now at the top of the atmosphere just added, and yet the S-B formula is bequeathed the right to ignore THIS new surface, because the perfection of the body for which it is designed to calculate has a limit at the solid surface only.

    It seems that this formula allows blindness to other formulas, for other circumstances for which the formula was never conceived to handle. In this case, a black body becomes a black body with a largely-non-blackbody shell, to form a system for which the S-B equation seems to no longer apply, because the SYSTEM as a WHOLE no longer meets the requirements for a “nearly perfect black body.” It seems incorrect to call the planet with no atmosphere and the planet with an atmosphere the same body, let alone the same BLACK body.

  105. Nile Gilmanov says:

    Hey Guys! I have a quick question. I have been debating on and off with very basic understanding of principles of the 2nd law in radiative transfer, but encountered a counter argument such as this: essentially 2nd law only applies to closed systems, open systems are outside of the 2nd. law’s constraints and thus it follows that my argument is somehow invalid. Intuitively I know that doesn’t cancel how heat flows, I mean it’s a law. How would you guys counter this type of argument?

  106. Allen Eltor says:

    It should be pointed out that Eschenbach is a confirmed, doped down, COMBATIVE mentally ill man.

    That’s a fact.

    He has a degree in psychology – manipulating people, from the 1970s,

    a vocational certification in MASSAGE – a job that basically, ends up with the masseuse often outright masturbating strangers,

    and he’s a *confirmed* doped down


    mentally ill man.

    That’s Eschenbach. I saw Eschenbach one time, try to take credit for the ENTIRE scientific movement exposing the frauds of the various Magical Gassiness Brigade. I know my quote isn’t accurate, but he said something along the line of “You might as well say I’m responsible for almost all of this skeptical movement” or some similarly ridiculous tripe. He’s just fu*king grandiose insane.

    I saw him admit early on he takes drugs

    for controlling his aggressive, in other words, assaultive/combative behavior.

    Go figure, huh.

    Then there’s the matter of Magic Gas Tony himself,

    Anthony ” My divorce came as a complete surprise” Watts

    Watts is a college dropout.
    He has no degree, he has no reputation except as – wait for it – a mass media
    entertainment professional.

    No degree, and yet – he’s a ‘meteorologist.’

    He’s a California Republican, called a ‘watermelon’ – green on the outside, pure, craven, authority worshipper on the inside.

    He’s another of the myriad QUACKS who find the DemonicRats Party so infested with like minded creeps,
    that there’s no way to get any traction.

    They are loyal to nothing, and nobody, so they pack up their grandiosities and announce they are now Republicans. California is *infamous* for this very phenomenon.
    And there’s Magic Gas Tony, right in the middle of it.

    Three or four college towns north of Sacramento, the heart of Watermelon Country, there’s fat Tony, peddling his

    A complete kook himself, without the morality to stand shoulder to shoulder with other temporarily unknown people, and say a cold bath isn’t a magical heater, because he discovered government employees were running the scam, HE just JUMPED SHIP and started SNITCHING OUT, BAITING, & LIBELING SKEPTICS, while claiming he, himself, was one of them.

    Think of the Vichy government. KooK and co. @ Skeptical Science website, all pasting their faces onto portraits of Nazis burning Russia. They were celebrating their burning down, of – what? SCIENCE.

    KooK and all his friends, are government employees. It’s their Nazi Party, systematically crippling Atmospheric Sciences so they can steal the world’s people blind.

    Why is Watts such a hate-filled, rabid Skeptic hating
    ass-wipe, so ineffective at aiding the skeptical science movement, so openly mocking of real scientific discussions and papers lauded worldwide by real scientists and scientific personnel, alike?

    Because Watts is the Vichy government compliment to J. KooK and company at SkepticalScience.
    He’s not a government employee -not a member of the real Nazi party –

    but he serves as gatekeeper and propagandizer to the populace and activists who wish to get together and criticize the invading Nazis.

    He has a long list of “bad words you can’t say about the criminals, the frauds who teach your children a cold nitrogen bath is an angry magic heater” – odd for someone who SHOULD be OUTRAGED at the deliberate destruction of science.

    WHY does HE hate YOU more than the frauds he smarms with, calling them ” our friends “?

    That’s literally insane, unless you take the only SANE choice: he’s a weak, loser collaborator, who hates the scientists he can never be one of, and thought if he would gate keep and snitch, fingering every skeptic he could, humiliating them, pretending they’re incompetent – the ‘Good War’ – burning science to the ground through sheer hate, jealousy, zeal and greed, – the ‘good times’ would never end.

    That’s the kind of intellectual and spiritual midget, Fat Tony is. He’d rather profit today and aggrandize himself as the world’s largest climate website owner viciously libeling and insulting the REAL scientists people want to hear from and share commentary with, acting snidely, smugly satisfied he can interrupt and insult EVERYONE with rules OBVIOUSLY designed to CURTAIL scientist’s opinions about fraud, and crime

    While he calls himself a’meteorologist’. He is to the scientific fields, what the man putting gas in your car is, to the automotive fields. That attendant might be called a ‘fuel technician’ but so is the man with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree, transferring fuel between 75,000 and 125,000 gallon tanks, giant salt domes and supertankers.

    They’re both ‘fuel transfer specialists.’

    Well that’s Watts’ relationship to atmospheric science. So he has no reputation to damage. Just like the people in the Vichy government: they were losers when real qualified Frenchmen applied for the leadership jobs. But if you just cut out all the qualified people,

    Suddenly, yew ar a reall smarte fellur. Magical Gassiness has dun turnt the sky intwo a big old magical heedur and thair aint none whut kin dyspewt it. Thair aint evun nobody else what can understand the magical gaissiness except our krack college dropouts. Thay alone has got the deap, insights that gives understandin about the marvelous magical gaissiness.


    So that’s what you’re dealing with, when you’re trying to fathom why commentary and comments in general at Magic Gas Tony’s feels like you are in the home of the Taliban, asking where’s the coffee shop.

    Watts is as corrupt as the original thieves at Real Climate. He’s as corrupt as the secondary government employee thieves at Skeptical Science. He knows none of it’s real, a f**king 10 year old can be taught a cold nitrogen bath can’t be a heater, and how to check.

    John KooK et al are the occupation troops making sure the fraud of the major grants scammers is taught as real science -they are part of the same Nazi army, they just fill a different niche after the original, largest thefts have been taken by their science destroying shock troops who gutted science and installed fakery in endless reams.

    Watts is the Vichy government analog in this story of government employees pasting their own faces onto portraits of WWII Nazis: completely unqualified to pump fuel at a gas station, when he is on his website he is an ‘author, educator, *meteorologist, leader, and integrity assurance specialist.
    With a long list of words that you can’t say about the Nazis, or your ‘discussion’ is sent to his “team of moderators so they can ‘ examine’ it.

    He needs a ‘team of moderators’ to “examine” your discussion about the w.e.a.t.h.e.r.

    SAYING a COLD NITROGEN BATH isn’t a giant magic HEATER means “your speech is suspect”

    Suspect of WHAT? Suspect of implying a cold nitrogen bath isn’t a HEATER – and that the light blocking refrigerants arent the GianTiny CORE of the cold bath that is a magic HEATER.

    The magic heater ” caint no body understand if’n thay ain’t signtsie. Like me and Willis.

    Willis, the doped down mentally ill man
    who never shadowed a seat in ANY technical education program of ANY KIND, yet who purports to hold forth corrections of the men whose intellectual jock straps he’s not fit to carry or even sniff.

    A combative insulting mentally ill man FAKING understanding of something as simple as gas temperatures. Claiming to CORRECT men who did it right.

    A doped up mentally ill man claiming to be running a thread on atmospheric chemistry, making people feel like “they dont want to seem combative”

    to the doped up mentally ill man they try to tell the laws of thermodynamics written for solving the temperatures of gases and atmospheres

    Are the laws of thermodynamics for solving the temperatures of gases and atmospheres.

    Again the combative mentally ill man hosting an atmospheric chemistry thread,

    and who believes a cold nitrogen bath is a HEATER

    CAN’T BE TOLD the GAS LAW WRITTEN to CALCULATE gas and atmospheric temperatures,

    is used to calculate gas and atmospheric temperatures.

    He’s fu**ing crazy. He’s just as insane and brainless as you would have to be, to be say and do the things he embodies.

    He thinks he’s the enforcer of Fat Tony’s FAKE SCIENCE Vichy class website, where cold nitrogen baths are heaters, and “if yew caint understand that, yew caint be signtsie like me.”

    He’s as fu**ing crazy as a smoke filled basement full of tweakers cooking meth. I’m not exaggerating, and I’m kind of not laughing, either.

    He really is just as insane as a bedbug. Not to mention as amoral as Magic Gas Watts. The two of them represent the head and security chief of the Vichy government.

  107. Allen Eltor says:

    Fat Tony – if he’s honest, why doesn’t he have his Electric Cars, he peddles on Ebay, on his website?

    And why doesnt Fat, Greasy Tony, have his Republican Activist stuff posted on his website?

    Poor little Fat Tony, he can’t find a SOUL who can explain to him, that a cold nitrogen bath isn’t a giant, magic heater.

    It’s all so complicated.. who can tell if a cold nitrogen bath is a giant, magical heater or not?

    Fat Tony can’t.

    Fat Tony is a ‘ meteorologist ‘
    who has to have doped down mentally ill Willis, run his atmospheric chemistry thread.

    Because a mentally ill man can defend the “signts” about the magical gassiness

    making a cold nitrogen bath turn into a giant, magical heater.

    And the LAW of PHYSICS written to calculate it’s temperature

    can’t be used to calculate it’s temperature.

    A combative mentally ill man, whose technical certification is for masturbating people,

    and whose theoretical education is in manipulating people.

    Running a thread where he boldly declares, that the law of thermodynamics written to calculate the temperature of a phase of matter,

    can’t be used to calculate the temperature of that phase matter

    That’s Fat Tony’s idea of “technical competence.”

    A mentally ill man with a degree in manipulating people, and a vocational certificate in masturbating people,

    running an Atmospheric Chemistry thread

    on how the lae of physics written to calculate gas temperature,

    can’t be used to calculate gas temperature.

  108. The Earth-Sun system is the closed system. Of course the Earth is open to the Sun. Sophistry to say that the Earth is not closed when no one claimed it was given that the context is already the Earth-Sun system. 2nd Law therefore applies to the Earth-Sun system…but it’s not the point. The RGHE violates the FIRST law. Again: the RGHE violates the FIRST law. dU = dQ + dW. Q is heat, W is work…backradiation has no heat and does no work, therefore can’t cause dU change in thermal energy. In other words RGHE violates conservation of energy.

  109. Alan Editor, that’s probably the longest ad hominem that I’ve ever read.

    Entertaining, but I’m not sure how much good it does for our reputations here. (^_^)

    I have been tracking down Ned Nikolov’s replies to his brutal critics. I’d say his critics fit the description of “combative”, and so Alan’s comments could well be distributed to have greater effect, if one were to go this route.

    Seriously though, in looking over the critiques, I find that the level of math required to understand the fine points enables only the most sophisticated sophists to play.

    Holder’s inequality? Double integrals? … pretty heavy stuff, but I actually think I get the gist of it.

    I have never felt good about the way the Stefan-Boltzmann law is traditionally applied, and I just couldn’t put my finger on why. But I’m a little closer now, I think.

  110. Allen Eltor says:

    Joseph: if you dont feel like putting those two posts up, don’t, man. Lol.

    It was late and I kinda got hung up on the sheer,

    Incredibly bizarre nature of things

    when a man – a self confessed mentally ill man who admits

    to being drugged, to limit his grandiosity and aggression

    is foisted onto the world by another man who also shows REPEATED evidence of bizarre, hate filled malice toward the very scientific world reeling with the discovery men and women have COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED


    telling children from Kindergarten thtough University courses that –

    has been discovered to not actually calculate the temperatures of matter
    but be off by tens and hundreds of degrees according to the gas volume solved for…

    The college dropout who claims he is a meteorologist, and who shows, himself –

    ***mentally ill levels***
    of completely unexplainable hatred

    toward ANYONE
    who suggests the

    Laws of physics,
    explain the temperature of Air,***

    to the point that HE HAS A TEAM OF MODERATORS

    the conversation of people who suggest the laws of physics ARE true

    and that FRAUDS
    caught admitting to each other thry are terrified of being exposed as FRAUDS

    are FRAUDS…


    are telling HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people, millions of people, worldwide, that

    EVERYBODY who says THE TWO of THEM are WRONG,

    are the ones who are crazy.

    When I go there and say the laws of physics calculate temperatures of
    Cold nitrogen baths as

    cold nitrogen baths, I’m crazy;

    when Joseph Postma tells these two mentally ill men without a jr college education between them, in fundamentals of physical science of ANY kind,

    the laws of physics caln calculate the temperature of AIR

    HE’S crazy: so crazy he, the Astrophysicist, is BANNED from EVER talking about the WEATHER there again.

    When ANY BODY comes there and points out the MENTALLY ILL MEN with ZERO qualification to teach physics

    are wrong for telling millions of people

    the LAWS of PHYSICS are WRONG

    and that a cold bath is not just a heater – but that the

    stopping 20% of otherwise available spectra from even entering Earth’s physical, hence mathematical systems..

    are the GIANTINY CORE of the

    the laws of physics show to be
    a cold,
    light blocking bath…

    Everybody who says the laws of physics can solve thr temperature of AIR

    and points out that there’s no place ANYWHERE in the

    laws of physics

    where the “magicalness of the gassiness”

    makes a cold refrigerated bath
    giant heater –

    they think it is appropriate for them to start insulting the people who say that, and that really,

    It’s better they simply intercept ANYTHING containing CODE WORDS for “examination” LoL –

    This shit UP –

    if you use CODE WORDS that indicate

    You think or know the law of physics written for solving gas

    solves for gas temperature,

    you are drserving of being insulted, libeled, basically cursed and spit on because

    “You can’t understand

    the magical gassiness”

    the way they do.

    The college dropout who infiltrated the political party ostensibly opposed to his legalized theft of hundreds, of thousands of dollars in subsidies

    for the zev2go electric ‘cars’, he peddles on EBay

    and who brags about his 25years of mass audience manipulation

    and who claims to be a ‘meteorologist’

    simultaneously claims that he was surprised when his wife finally had enough of his constant scamming and stealing from both sides while playing the middle and divorced him,

    and that he is surprised people would tell him the law of physics

    WRITTEN to solve the temperatures of cold, light blocking baths,

    show the cold light blocking baths

    to be

    cold, light blocking baths.

    And he has talked to the

    mentally ill man he consults with

    about cold light blocking baths being giant magic heaters only they,

    and a bunch of busted computer frauds

    understand the ‘magical gassiness’ of,

    and they agree that between them all, it is absolutely certain, that

    cold nitrogen baths are magical heaters only they and the bunch of busted computer frauds understand,

    and the entire rest of the world has it out for them,

    because we’re so jealous, that they can understand the laws of thermodynamics are wrong,

    and they’re not.

    They are JUSTIFIED in speaking to the WHOLE WORLD like they are dogs… treat scientists the ENTIRE honest world agree are right like the scheming, scamming FAKES

    they THEMSELVES,

    while the ENTIRE WORLD looks on with tevulsion that such exposed scammers can thumb their

    MENTALLY ILL noses

    LAUGHING that honest people persist in tellimg them STOP SPREADING FRAUDULENT TALES
    that the LAWS of PHYSICS are wrong.

    Teaching CHILDREN:in KINDERGARTEN that we discovered the law of physics are wrong and that ”Venus is very hot because of a ‘magical gassiness’ that could make us all burn up if we use too much fire.”

    “When we use fire, we could make the sky get hot and it could reflect back down and make us hotter than it’s supposed to be”

    and if we dont buy our fire from the right fire peddlers, we could be betraying the earth, making it get too hot and the oceans will rise and swallow up peoples’ houses…

    Malicious Tony really is a very, very evil man.

    He is the perfect collaborator:


    Authority worshipper,

    Jealous of accomplishment,

    Generally ill willed, viciosly insulting as many people as ce can daring people to say the truth at his website again so he can bully, selectively publishing only what he wishes, of others’ words,

    A paranoid, bizarre fixation on controlling every word many people say, simply because they insist THE GAS LAWS WRITTEN TO SOLVE THEM ACTUALLY WORK and that he’s WRONG when he says the laws are

    Approvsl seeker, accolades and worship addiction; unable to lose arguments in public: no sense of personal shame, much of the time.

    *Organized political manipulation – constant scheming and controlling behaviors

    Watts is the CLASSICAL profile of the evil, conning manipulator.

    My father was a police chief first, then a Federal Law Enforcement Agent for the I.R.S. he was always profiling people; and Watts is the very PROFILE of the self seeking mild psychopath, and overall sociopath.

    That’s why he’s hooked to that combative, stupid,

    mentally ill Eschenbach,
    the way he is.

    They’re both too stupid to hang with the educated, but they’re cunnimg enough to stick together and help hustle the scientific integrity mobement from the cover Watts gives them to flatter each other bromancing their way through the con, two born losers who met because of their mutual fascination with fraud, who are instantly outclassed the instant the general public shows up but hey – it’s somethimg to do…

    I started out this post sorta laughing at myself for being so alerted to all the profile s those two give off, especially together.

    Remember when i said i kinda am not laughing about W. E. being as creepy as they get?

    Im a chip off the old law enforcement profiler block,

    and i was clocking the Coo- Coos – how, and where, they’ve come to roost, in the back of my mind.

    Con men often run in pairs, either playing dumb and dumber, or they switch ofg as each others’ wing man.. giving each other a much needed psychological break, from the constant pressre of the never ending husle – the scam that drsws enemies they both love humiliating.

    Individually they’re pathetic; as a pair they’re hopelessly without any vestige of conscience or morality.

    The crazy, free-wheeling bully, and the weak, needy nerd: they’ve each found their missing half.

    It’s disgusting. Many small timers meet in the shade of some con they’ve both become associated with, realize how big the pie is,

    they hook up and it’s like Midnight Cowboy.

    Watch the movie midnight cowboy and you’ll understand.

    Then imagine Watts as the Ratso Rizzo character and Eschenbach as the Cowboy with no inhibitions and no shame.

    They’re a couple of real creeps who have indeed met each other’s vision of who they could have been, if only… they would have been – each other.

    And now this scam has thrown them together, they both feel strong, like they’ve met their other half, that never could have been.

    The two of them will hang on, defying scientific integrity to figure out the thrill of the scam, till the day each of them scams his last I.M. message from some keyboard on a phone.

    Hard core hustler types often meet like these two, each fascinated with some scheme… they reakize there’s a prize of some kind, and they latch on just for the thrill of such a large ride.. money, the grudging respect of other scammers, moving between the criminals who dont work and the real world is intoxicating to them, and they cherish the exclusivity and pride of seeing their names, over and over, at the top of the pages where everybody gathers.

    They don’t care that they’re hatrd, to them, everybody else, isca sucker; a grazer, the herd of sheeple they are THRILLED that they can control in exchange for being one of the ‘in’ crowd.

    Well – anyway, you get the point.

    Everyone should start referring to those two as ” The Midnight Cowboys.”

    To their faces, those to should be repeatedly and perpetually referred two as ” the two cowboys” etc L o L.

    No? Ill let you guys be the judge.

    Midnight Cowboys,
    Watts & Willis,
    a match made

    in the sewers of science: climatology.

  111. … entertaining, but still …

    … giving more fuel to foul, so to speak. (^_^)

  112. Matt in Frisco says:

    Joe, that is the perfect encapsulation of the sophists absurd fraud.

    Do these guys know that NASA (JSC/KSC- manned Spaceflight centers) tracks the atmospheric fluctuations because it affects the drag on the ISS (as well as other LEO sats) governing how frequently it needs to be reboosted? As in the earth’s atmosphere is not a static body? Work is constantly being done in the atmosphere (thanks Sun!) moving absolutely massive amounts of atmosphere in titanic levels of energy. Read: Nuclear weapons are pitiful in comparison to the work that Thunderstorms etc do on a daily basis.

  113. Yea, … thunderstorms, evaporation, condensation, convection. Where is CO2 and its puny infrared-active behavior in all this? I’ll venture a concise answer: ALONG FOR THE RIDE.

    I get the feeling sometimes that the physicists who do the painstakingly detailed breakdowns of CO2’s absorption bands, wings, etc. present the atmosphere as this static mass with these few molecules of CO2 doing this miraculous thing. They are talking about one molecule per 2500 other molecules.

    I could go into endless detail on the structure of a single skin cell — spend all my time, everyday — elucidating the intricate, miraculous details of a single cell’s metabolism — drawing cool diagrams, charts, and tables. But this would say nothing really useful about how fast I could walk a mile with my WHOLE BODY IN MOTION.

    CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are like fleas on a dog — fleas don’t have much effect on how fast or far the dog can run to fetch that tennis ball.

  114. … and I’ll never get how CO2 is supposed to “trap heat” or “slow cooling”.

    I don’t even get how CO2 is even supposed to facilitate warming of the molecules next to it. CO2 maybe can move radiation around a bit more efficiently from one place to another, like maybe on Venus, helping to channel radiation from the day side to the loooooooooooooong night side, and maybe help establish Venus’ consistent temperature across its whole globe all the time.

    But where’s the heat it’s supposed to ADD ? Again, concise answer: IN DELUDED MINDS.

  115. Allen Eltor says:

    Robert, heyas how’s it going? Robert I know i MIGHT seem presumptive to tell you but you really, really, had to be around, when all this was cranking up, during a period starting about 25 years ago, then along came Fat Tony and the Magical Gaissiness is SOWND, SIGNTS, YaW!.

    Bob my father was a policeman… then a little town marshal, then a police chief, then an I.R.S. enforcement agent.

    When I was in the service I did a couple of years as a cop, there.

    So I’ve seen some evil, just plain, no good mo***f***rs in my life do some low-down sh**.

    And that’s just the guys at City Hall, not the criminals! LoL.

    And when I tell you this, I have measured these words with great care: Watts is as evil as John the KooK Cook himself.

    Maybe more. He POSES like he’s trying to HELP the integrity in science movement.

    KooK and company at SKS were pasting their own faces onto the portraits of Nazis burning Russia down. They were happy they were burning science down when they did that pasting.

    Watts is the snitch, the collaborator, who gathers the partisan resistance to his home to criticize the invading Nazis, then starts using his insider position to poison the entire community with horrific behavior against the VERY SCIENTISTS HE’LL NEVER become one OF, because he’s so f***g stupid,

    and against the scientists he CLAIMED to be concerned about the integrity of science, WITH.

    He’s an evil, evil, science molester. That’s all he is: a science molester. He’s figured out that his little land sensing projects gig is real, but that it’s got a life span, so he simply DEFECTED and started personally persecuting to the absolute MAXIMUM his MASS COMMUNICATIONS AUDIENCE MANIPULATION experience can provide,

    single person
    he can catch, ‘OUT’, and subject to MASS HARASSMENT
    IN the science integrity movement.

    Did you see what happened when he started whistling about how maybe he was gonna start an ‘education association’ to teach the world about the magnificance of the magical gassiness?

    The man running the world’s LARGEST weather climate website had something like ZERO people join his association, after he asked for support for it on his OWN WEB SITE – for WEEKS not a PERSON signed up, if I recall right. I might be wrong Robert but I went to the page where he had some kinda sh** up on his grandiose plans to poison the earth with tales of how – yew noe,

    cain’t but thim signtsie wunz, like him and Willis and uthur leat mindes, can understand about the

    gassiness, not a SOUL had joined his FAKE ‘education’ scam.

    He’s a horrendous, evil, self seeking, self pitying, conscience-less pseud-science barking,
    ANTI science,

    Just like any other parasite profiteering off fraud: he cut himself out a little corner, and he TRIED to tell people about how – yew noe, cain’t nobody understand the magical gaissiness less’n thay has got GRATE MINDS, like him and willis,

    and the readers, simply S.T.E.A.M.R.O.L.L.E.D. his STUPID ass, again,
    and again,
    and again,

    again – every time he trotted that ludicrous shit out.

    So after awhile, he finally just s.t.f.u. for the most part in public… but what he DID do was keep expanding his ‘list of bad things yew cain’t say abowt the magical gaissiness, and ”our friends” in fraud,
    et all,
    ad nauseum,

    so that he can SURREPTITIOUSLY shoot scientific integrity through simply keeping people from discussing, REAL atmospheric chemistry.

    All that ‘it’s soe suh fistikaydid yaW, YaW cain’t evun understand, yew aint seen thuh data!!’ is a COMPLETE
    crock of SH**.

    And all you have to be able to do, to discover just HOW much a crock of sh** it is,
    is to

    (1) learn about how the values for the International Standard Atmosphere are calculated, just as a general, personal task, to kinda… just go overview all that,

    and then,
    (2) – Read up on what Harry Huffman says regarding the calculation of gas temperatures, for atmospheres of planets. ALSO you should read the two posts by (all rise) Tony Heller (you may be seated) in HIS two posts on this very subject, named
    Hyperventilating on Venus
    Venus Envy –

    most surprisingly these two threads are actually ON, Fat Tony’s WUWT website!

    And – regarding Harry Huffman Robert, – Harry’s a physicist not a journalist, but – read his writings, on ‘No Green House On Venus’-

    and then, since I know you’re the adventurer/reader, I can’t remember the name of his other posts on the SUBJECT of calculating atmospheric temperatures, but he’s got another couple of posts buried deep in his website named ‘The End of The Mystery- that are nothing short of riveting.


    The REASON it’s so simple is that there are so many degrees of freedom: inflation/expansion, deflation/compression, not locking into crystal solid forms but remaining individual, sorta idealized-acting molecules – so the RULES SET for how they ACT
    is quite SHORT.

    Thus the MATHEMATICS of how gases act, is ALSO – quite short, and succint.

    Anyway – thanks Joseph for entertaining my long posts, and also thanks everybody else for not being too critical of what I say.

    There are going to be hundreds – HUNDREDS of kids, adults, who come by here through the years, and they simply will not be able to understand, WHY the F*** we let all this get out of HAND so bad.

    People are ALREADY remarking in media, in interviews, this kinda thing, that – they don’t understand how the crap swept the planet.

    It swept the planet because the world’s most ELEVATED scientific personnel were TELLING
    IN ALL the WORLD
    that the 25 SPACECRAFT we have together sent to VENUS – 13 of them LANDING on it-
    the GAS LAWS don’t WORK.

    That is a BALD faced f8*king LIE without * read what I say yO * a SINGLE SYLLABLE of TRUTH.

    If they DIDN’T
    we couldn’t have ROBOTICALLY LANDED some 13 CRAFT on the SURFACE, REMOTELY,
    using the – go FIGURE,
    GAS LAW WRITTEN to DETERMINE TEMPERATURE, DENSITY, VOLUME, etc – to LAND those ROCKETS – craft around half the size of a voltswagon beetle in some cases.

    It’s JUST not that complicated,
    and you’re being CONNED, when you’re being TOLD it is.

    Lemme ask you a question. I’m telling you it’s not very complicated,
    the Magical Gassiness brigade SWEARS, thay got thim Holdur in ee kwaliteez, and awl thim big mathematical thangs, that – cain’t nobody understand less’n thay’z SIGNTSIE like..

    Willis and Watts,

    and I’m telling you, the e.n.t.i.r.e. s.c.i.e.n.t.i.f.i.c. establishment from the CHIEF of NASA GISS
    and in BOTSWANA
    I’m telling you
    LYING and all you gotta do to check
    is go READ
    Hyperventilating on Venus
    Venus Envy


    The End of the Mystery: No Green House on Venus – by Harry Huffman.

    And you’re gonna see Robert: those lying bastards are teaching people from KINDERGARTEN

    that a COLD nitrogen bath is a HEATER
    and that the
    light blocking
    are the MAGIC, GianTiNY CORE
    of the
    cold nitrogen bath
    that is uh… yew noe..
    magical heedur.

    They’re LYING.

    they say
    is a LIE.

    And the reason I know this so well personally is because

    I heard the entire, original scam, described in detail from the mouth of Hansen’s supervisor who was telling the entire world who would listen that HANSEN’S COMPUTER MODELS and none built on his teachings – they DO NOT HAVE
    the LAW written for solving gases hence atmospheres’ temperatures,

    Secondly, when I was a kid, my pop was a cop and my mom owned some ocean and freshwater and plant raising businesses where I personally grew up, as – an atmospheric chemist. I know it seems perhaps improbable but atmospheric and gas chemistry is NOT a complicated subject,
    compared to many.

    Anyway gotta go, but thanks for reading what I said and not being too mean for me saying it. Real scientists being too nice, is kinda how we all got IN this mess..

    non magical gassiness,
    upon yas ALL!


  116. nilator says:

    Great analogies Robert! Love the fleas on a dog! HA HA HA!

  117. I gotta agree with the psych eval. The best thing about these people is that they’ve been trained to shit in a toilet.

  118. Allen E.,

    I’ve been tuned into Huffman for a few years, and I only now — six years after his blog started — had my first exchange with him. He’s not one to mince words, and I feel that I might have riled him a bit by pressing him on some details, but, hopefully, that was just a misunderstanding.

    If I understand him correctly, Huffman seems to be convinced that planet atmospheres are warmed by DIRECT solar absorption, and that’s what I was pressing him to explain, given that nitrogen and oxygen, for example, are touted as having no such capability, yet they make up the bulk of Earth’s atmosphere.

    So, the question is, “Does physics have this wrong ?” Is there an even more fundamental assumption that is wrong ? That’s the direction I was trying to nudge Huffman to address. Hopefully, he gets my drift, and won’t get all philosophically defensive on me in his signature, grandiose, confident style.

  119. Allen Eltor says:

    Yeah, Robert, I saw him say that. That’s kinda weird for him to be wrong about that, but I’ve almost never in my life seen anyone be able to get all of physics right, it’s a creepy-level odd, isn’t it, the way that always pops up with people.

    I’d imagine, that once Harry realized the atrociously incompetency in general atmospheric sciences, he decided to not let himself get emotionally sucked in, said whatever came off the top of his head the first time he ever spoke in public about it, and has that resilient capacity of a lot of hard sciences thinkers to simply decide he’s s.t.f.u. on that till next TIME, which’ll be – the next time he thinks about it.

    His atmospheric mathematics are right. I remember somewhere along the line, RIGHT as Climategate came out, going all over the internet to see who, was pointing out the steps along the way to calculating the International Standard Atmosphere, and for awhile, there were some people sorta in a general orbit around what Harry discusses about calculating the temperatures.

    See, that’s where you get them, is the math. They can’t fuglin calculate, the International Standard Atmosphere.

    They come up, 33 degrees short.

    And Huffman, can calculate a temperature for a planetary atmosphere, right.

    I’ll tell ya another really interesting thing, about this buncha f***g frauds claiming thim phisicalisitiy laws, thay cain’t calkewlayte nunna thim gais timp urchurs, cawse thay.. thim laws ain’t signtsie, and this ain’t abowt no laws, anyway… YaW!”

    The guy, who Tony Heller found out about first, so Tony says, was Mr BiLLIoNs & BILLioNS uh Stars,” or whatever he said – Carl Sagan,
    being asked in – I guess it was… 1967,

    Real scientists, not the math molester Schmidt, Mann, those trash, asked Sagan to give them an idea, of what he figured the temperature of Venus’ surface was.

    They had a new radar profile of the atmosphere so they knew how deep it was.

    Since they had the radar, and the orbit, and various other little tricks in yon scientific bag, they figured they really kinda knew about where the surface is,

    and they figured they knew the general mass obviously becuause of the prev mentioned orbit.

    Ok – this gives you gravitational pull, or weight, to this gas,

    So, if the atmosphere’s XyZ thick, and yada yada, the temperature, at the surface, must be,

    easily calculated. Well – Sagan did and they didn’t have really full info on the chemistry of the bath so they actually had their pressure wrong, because of forces out of their control, but – the mathematics remains the same, effectively, in all it’s essentials, they were just a little wrong about where the surface started, and the super-dense, re-liquified co2 on the surface was.

    So – what the scoop is,
    is that – N.A.S.A. published this paper;
    and they didn’t critique it or go on about how the inside of a unicorn is so oddly like the placenta of a new black hole’s emotional profile, because these were real scientists, not Hansen on forward.

    And – when you see him calculate the temperature and then go watch Tony Heller give his own kinda lowdown on it,

    you get to the point where Harry is repeatedly reminding you that this is all very simply answered by – ”why can’t you f***g hicks calculate the proper temperature of the International Standard Atmosphere?”

    The paper Bob is in the Sept 1967 aeronautics journal or something like that, it’s like.. volume 37, ah sh** now I can’t remember and I’m out here without my home laptop…

    I’ll find it if you go google Discus and Allen Eltor and 1967 Harvard Aerospace Journal or something like that, – I used to beat down dipsh**ts with that paper with all the joy of a child running a chihuhua away from his sandwich with a big ol fly swatter.

    See Bob what it all comes down to is they leave out the hydrostatic equation, where the gas law assigns the pressure warming, all gases have, when they’re sucked down against he surface of a sphere.

    F**g hicks talking about how ‘thim gaises ain’t got nair walls, ‘n whut not, so thay cain’t be all pressurdficaydid up ‘fernin’st thay selves, like uh buncha nerds in uh elevator or somethin, thim ain’t got nairy touchin’isms against nuthin! …. f*cking hicks….

    when you pull all the gases down against the finite area of a spherical, global surface, all the air molecules pressing against each other, are PRECISELY what stop them from being about to slip out from UNDER, the ones ABOVE – so – obviously, the pressurization argument is the self-sh**ting, shirt-front drooling looptardism only an idiot who thought a cold nitrogen bath is a heater could think.

    The gases can’t slip to the side in any direction because there are other identical air molecules being pulled down by the identical gravity pulling the example molecules down… they are all pulled down together and this is what makes f***g flour stop sifting down out of a funnel.

    The hicks who believe in that stupid sh** can’t even fathom why things are trapped when falling through funnel shaped, cone shaped geometries. ”I cain’t figure owt why thay’z awl jammin tuh gethur!”

    So anyway Robert the part about what Harry goes way into discussion about calculations of gas temperatures related to atmospheres, – did you personally ever get to go through a bunch of his posts, on the OTHER threads ? man.. I went in there a few times and read whatever he was going on about and once in awhile he gets on a kick about explaining – where the MATHS all intersect perfectly when you calculate gas temperatures instead of just – fucking purely – practice fraud…

    it’s very much an aid in seeing how universal the mathematical prohibitions are, when you see someone simply going on at length about it in various contexts, of different environments, answering diff questions with people, this kinda thing.

    Maybe it was just me.

    But yeah I certainly see what you’re saying about the warming not coming as much from the top and I’m sure you’re right, it’s a fairly well known thing, I think he’s one of those old school physicists who … sometimes people who are hard core math and physicists combined, – well – it’s EXACTLY like Joseph says, they often are able to react to word problems posed, in an autistic way because their level of function in the math world a lot, – it really kinda reduces a lot of peoples’ societally normal curiosity, …I mean you know how that is..

    Anyway, I’ll try to go look through my own Discus remarks where I’m spitting on magical gassers and get the paper Tony Heller talked about perking up his interest in this.

    Oh also Robert in Hellers’ posts please see where at that time physicist Lubos Motl came by and TROLLED Heller, saying ”I’m going to debunk you ;)”

    then going to his own place, and agreeing that – no, HE was wrong, the laws of physics ARE real, the gas laws written FOR gas matter/energy relationships DO calcualate gas temperatures right, and there is NO
    grean howse
    warmin. YaW.


    peace I’ll try to find that paper it’s the Harvard astrophysics journal, September, 1967, pages 730-731, Bob.
    See if that works, I have to run, me and the wife are running around with our son and his grandson.

    Peace scientists, physicists, students, etc.

    All magic gas barking maggots can choke out on a mouth full of vomit.

  120. Allen E.,

    I always seem to pick up new words for my vocabulary, when I wade through your long “commentainment” (I just made that one up by combining “commentary” and “entertainment”)

    Today’s word, for me, was … looptardism — whose definition, I venture, would go something like this: a state of mental deficiency brought on by practicing and promoting circular reasoning. To argue by looping that which is to be proved to that which is assumed, a priori. (^_^)

  121. Joseph E Postma says:

    You guys are awesome! lol 🙂

  122. Allen Eltor says:

    Yes SiR, Robert- “commentainment” Great ‘new eord’ msm I love word jokes, and making up commentainment terms: one of my own that i made up is a “manipulopath’ ..

    People can be seen ‘manipulopathing’ their way through a situation..

    also, “therm-0-billy” with a zero in the middle..

    Anyway im ptetty sure itscthe Harvard Astrophysics Journal, Sept 1967 pages 730-731… and it’s issue 49 or something like that..

    It is very, very important we dont frighten young people getting into stamping out this HORRENDOUS fucking fraud so I always try to talk about it in such way that someone watching can understand it’s gonna pay him to just learn about what this is: gas matter-energy mechanics.

    Gas matter-energy mechanics are the SIMPLEST phase of matter.

    And the government scammers are DELIBERATELY painting gas mechanics as complex.

    Gas matter energy relationships have the SIMPLEST principles governing them – not the most complex

    Later Joseph, glad you’re entertained and happy to see us
    talking about it!

    It’s grandson chasing season for us lately!

  123. Allen Eltor says:

    Oh YEAH the Jonathan Gero paper! Freakin incredible the way the scammers hide from that revealing and unquestionable paper!

    IT’S N.O.A.A.’s OWN PAPER!

    Anyway good night guys ill get a link to that N.A.S.A. paper written by Carl Sagan who BELIEVED in potential for magical gassiness, yet –

    calculated Venusian Atmospheric temperature,

    using proper – SIMPLE – gas matter/energy mathematics.

  124. manipulopath, Noun, A person who attempts to manipulate reasoning, using twisted logic, faulty physics, and unsound verbal gymnastics, in order to maintain allegiance to a certain point of view at all costs.

    therm-0-billy, Noun, A person whose reasoning about thermodynamics is as backward and unrefined as a hillbilly, as if relying on superstitions and folklore, with zero proper learning.

  125. Sunsettommy says:

    I see that Robert Holmes is still putting up the fight at WUWT, despite that he was almost banned there a few days ago.

  126. I’ve been trying to find studies that actually measure trends in down-welling, long-wave radiation from Earth’s atmosphere, and, I can’t seem to find any. Why is that? Is this not something that instruments can measure? Why no instrumental data sets over the years? Why is this seemingly not a standard data set, like global average temperature anomaly?

    If CO2 causes more of this stuff, then why haven’t we been keen on measuring it? I don’t get it. Am I missing something?

  127. Sunsettommy says:

    There is a reason why Robert…….., can you figure it out?

  128. Well, either downwelling radiation is unreal, in the sense that climate alarmists portray it, or, if it IS measurable and IS measured, then the measurements fail to agree with the alarmists’ narrative. As indicated earlier above, I found ONE study, and it seemed NOT to support the narrative.

    Am I close ?

    … late to the game, I guess, I also just found these:

  129. Whatever the answer, I still cannot get over how global average near-surface AIR temperature is anywhere near the same category of measurement as the average PLANETARY temperature figured THIS way:

    … two completely different “averages”, … wrongly compared, … as though they were representing the same metric.

    How have “experts” been allowed (and continue to be allowed) to do this ?!

  130. AfroPhys says:

    IR can make molecules dance IN PLACE (vibrate, rotate, stretch), but what determines how close they are to pass on their momentum to other molecules? What makes them move? Gravity. And that’s why we have an adiabatic lapse rate. Warmists are simply gravity deniers, Full Stop. We need to inform the psychiatric community so they can place warmists into a new DSM “gravity denier” category.

    P.S. youtube 1000frolly = Robert Holmes. His paper links to , a link I gave him on this site! It can’t be a coinicidence.

    Hope y’all doing well 🙂

  131. I don’t think warmists are gravity deniers. I think that they are container-wall obsessives. My brief impression is that they have a mental block trying to conceive of a gravitational-compression effect without solid walls in the picture somehow.

    A group of molecules next to another group of molecules, being pulled in by gravity, IS like a wall. And the weight of the entire atmosphere squishing down and around to press those molecules together IS like a wall. It’s not solid, but the effect of pressing together happens all around the circumference of the globe. There’s no place for any gas molecules to squish out of to escape that gravitational pull, and so they squish closer together in relation to one another.

  132. And back to the black body thing: A recent insight that I gleaned from some paper I read somewhere (I forgot which one) is that radiation does NOT magically stop its effect at the surface skin of the planet — there’s some heating of the Earth BELOW the surface, and this takes time to dissipate, apart from what the ideal black-body mathemagical incantations impart on gullible minds.

    The ground and water have heat capacity that has a TIME factor to consider. That’s partly why nights are above outer-space temperature — the heat takes time to dissipate, and before it does, we are continually approaching a sunlit side again. On the sunlit side, instead of being blazing hot, this same heat capacity is “dealt with” by the cooling layers of the upper atmosphere, in such a way that the Goldilocks ground temp is “just right” for life to flourish.

  133. AfroPhys says:

    The molecules can’t escape gravity, but the sun does cause them to expand and lose their specific gravity, so that colder molecules above are “swapped” with them. So we have convection mediated conduction. This is what warmists avoid. They like to think that GHGs are tiny heaters that power the atmosphere. In any case, I feel it’s still gravity denial. Scientists in the 21st century denying gravity … how absurd. All that ground and water really does “retain” and spread whatever energy it managed to absorb. co2 is the froth of the froth of your coffee. The froth has no effect on the coffee. It doesn’t keep it warm.

  134. Allen Eltor says:

    Yeah, it’s gravity denial, straight f***n up. Good call there.

  135. Allen Eltor says:

    Yeah Robert, there’s definitely some light pinging off the air on the way out. But that light is already taken into account when the planetary temperature is calculated properly, as per solving for the International Standard Atmosphere, and as per Harry Huffman’s expose’ on that situation.

    The reason they can’t match the international standard atmosphere is because they refuse to solve for the compression warming intrinsic to compressible phase matter. That matter, is STILL much colder than the planet overall, which is why,

    even after gravitational compression warming IS properly accounted, the Standard Atmosphere proves to be many degrees colder, on average, than the planet surface, itself.

    It’s.. it’s exactly what Afro is saying: it’s gravity denial… and you can STOP – A.N.Y. of them on a DIME by simply pointing out that – we KNOW the CORRECT way to calculate a temperature, it’s HOW we HAVE the international standard, the ‘International Standard Atmosphere.’

    When YOU engage in mathematics and come up with a different answer than the OFFICIAL answer, and the OFFICIAL answer is THE calibrational and regulatory standard for entire realms of humanity’s existence – your reference temperature, is shown to be correct by the fact instruments can be correctly calibrated against it.

    When you get the WRONG answer, YOU have come up, with the w.r.o.n.g. answer to a MATH question and – that’s proof on the spot, something’s wrong.

    They are PERFECTLY vulnerable to this because in mathematics there’s no EXCUSE – for having a DIFFERENT answer than the RIGHT one… and as said above, that right one is WELL known to be CORRECT.

    They CAN’T
    both BE correct.

    It’s JUST that simple.

    And the PRECISE amount they’re wrong is the difference in the compression warming: 33 degrees.

    It’s why they also claim the ”Grean hows uh feckt is muchly, muchly bigger on Venus than Earth.”

    That’s because the COMPRESSION of all that WEIGHT of all that gas, creates a warmer temperature. Just – period, end of their bullshit, it’s JUST that simple… and every time you wander away from that,

    the scam.

    Talk about anything BUT the most obvious direct proof it’s wrong, and you are helping them ”keep everybody talking” while they simply falsify records and STEAL, and announce FAKE atmospheric ‘science’ has determined that…

    yew noez – the cold nitrogen bath conduction scrubbing the planet is uh… big ol giant heedur,
    and the
    light blocking
    phase change refrigerant gases, namely WATER –
    is the
    GianTiny core
    of the
    cold nitrogen bath
    that is
    uh.. heedur.

    It’s ludicrous from the very first word, to the last.

    The green house gases – again – WATER – stop 20% of otherwise available warming spectra from the sun,

    from ever even joining in Earth’s physical and mathematical systems.

    This 20% reduction is – off the top – a 20% reduction in surface energy density. Cooling.

    You can’t put a can of beer into a cold bath conduction scrubbing energy from it,
    out in the sun,
    and then put refrigerants into the bath, that make 20% less sunlight reach and warm the beer,
    and have that reduction in surface energy density, be – warming.

    The nitrogen bath is cold,
    the green house gases, as part of it are cold,
    and they stop light from reaching the surface ever – at all – any chart of sunlight top of atmosphere vs mean sea level shows ONE class gases, reducing the surface energy density of the planet by 20%.

    The green house gases do that. Carbon dioxide does a small amount of that cooling, water creates the vast majority of the refractive losses.

    Oxygen giving us blue sky daylight conditions, also reduces the surface energy density a SMALL amount but it’s trivial compared to the losses shown on ALL charts as CAUSED by the

    green house gases.

    Water, furthermore, is a phase-change refrigerant – that’s initially cold so even as a single phase gas, it’s conduction chilling the planet,

    and then as phase change refrigerant, it cools not just the surface wherever it falls, forms, and evaporates off – but it also phase change refrigerates the lower nitrogen bath as well – when water is rising, falling in convection driven phase-change storm cells, the water rises, lends energy to nearby nitrogen/oxygen, and also radiates some to space, till it cools to water.

    This condensing causes the water to fall far, FAR faster than if it remained a single phase gas…
    and it also
    reverts to vapor, again and again – 25, 35 times in just a typical thunderhead, a storm cloud, as it cools… falls, and encountering upward rising, warmth, reverts to vapor again… rises swiftly, cools to ice again, and this cycle happens again and again.

    This is nothing more nor less than phase change refrigeration of the lower atmospheric bath, the troposphere.

    All the ”yayuh but.. yayuh but.. yew ain’t signtsie, yew ain’t evun Climatie” is VERY rapidly silenced when you refuse to leave these fundamental tenets, and be dragged into bullshit country.

    One of the things I was trying to point out to you guys, just for something to do, is that – well – you guys came over and kinda pissed on their cheerios without me having to do much, but – you guys saw me go over to what’s his name’s place and challenge him and anybody there to even name the gas law responsible for solving gas temperatures.

    Not ONE of them could do it. One of them MENTIONED it and suggested it MIGHT be the Ideal Gas Law – but on a site where they claim to be ”always gittin sighntsie, and climitie, and awl like that” – the mufus that OWNED the place couldn’t tell us WHAT the name of the LAW is that governs solving of atmospheric temperatures.

    Midnight Cowboy Willis is in the same ignorant f***g boat. The fact he claims that there is some ”accounting” that need be done AFTER you properly calculate global atmospheric temperature, is proof that he’s nothing more nor less than a bullsh***ng f***g SCAMMER.

    There IS no ‘calculation of the magical grean hows gassiness whut dun made it awl hoddurn’hoddur’n it should be.’
    There’s NO such f***g thing, a.n.y.w.h.e.r.e. in calculation of any global atmospheric temperature, or of temperature of any volume of gas.

    ”But thim ideal gais law, it cain’t solve fur thim magical hoddurn’hoddurisms” is pure, classical, Willis Eschenbach, mentally ill street musician, talking sh** out of his “I have a vocational certificate as a massage therapist” hole.

    This is why Watts and Willis, are so combative – to EVERYONE. You’re NOT going to tell them the laws of physics are real, and that they solve gas temperatures just fine, they’ll curse you till the DAY they DIE, before they’ll allow it.

    Because they’re both, a couple of science destroying scammers.
    When GROWN f***g MEN
    are telling people the LAW of physics WRITTEN to solve temperatures of some phase matter,
    can’t calculate temperatures of that phase matter – they’re beyond wrong, they’re fraudulent buffoons.

    It can’t be stressed enough that every single syllable of the ENTIRE story about how ”the atmusfear is uh big ol’ heedur, and the core of the heedur is thim grean hows gaisses”

    is just

    Every syllable of it’s falsehood.

    You can start a.n.y. where you want,
    and due to this type scam being known as an ‘inversion scam’ – inverting important values early on, pretending no one can see that, and proceeding as per norm – no matter WHERE the F**** you START,

    within just a couple of sentences, YOU will have ARRIVED at one of the NEVER ending INVERSIONS of VALUE that MUST take place when a FRAUD defends, INVERSION scams.

    Because honest people trying to get to the core of the situation, invariably find the PREVIOUS inversion – and point out that it’s incorrect – so the scammer must create YET ANOTHER inversion,

    in order to perpetuate the myth, that – in this case – the cold nitrogen bath, shading then conduction chilling the light-warmed rock,

    is a giant magic heater.

    So… my own comment has kind of rambled through the brambles regarding the fraudulent bullshi** story about the magical gassiness making a cold nitrogen bath intwo uh… big ol heedur” but that’s just my way of making comment about the totality of the erroneous of the e.n.t.i.r.e. f***g claim.

    It’s the SAME church
    It’s the SAME tactics
    that told the entire planet – the PLANET – and made them all create laws agreeing, that –

    yew noez
    thim pots is like heroin. Thay’s uh GATE way to heroin.

    No, those f***g opiates and opiods are THE gateway to heroin.
    And yet you have laws in something like 80 countries
    And yet you have people having had their entire families, their own lives, broken: even MURDERED

    because guvurmint signts has dun discuvured that thim pots, at tair cannabis, is like heroin.

    Bullshit. Bull f***g sh** it is,

    and the cold nitrogen atmospheric bath, conduction scrubbing the planet, 24/7/365.25
    is not a ‘giant magical heedur’

    and the cold, light blocking refrigerants, aren’t the GianTiny core – of said magic heater.

    Anyway I’m out on that… best of luck to all of you wondering just wtF has gotten into the scientific establishment worldwide.

    What’s gotten into it is pure fraud, poured out on their heads from the very tip top pinnacles of alleged, scientific capability and integrity: the world’s climate organizations.

    The heads of which, as we all saw so clearly in Climategate, were and are engaged in stupendous fraud, with G.I.S.S. itself being the world’s largest, monolithic scientific research organization.

    The money that goes through there is astonishing and the men seeing it go by – Hansen and his computer programmer fraud friends – wanted their cut, and they started taking it. And when Al Gore’s movie HIGHLIGHTED said work,

    they went into triple overtime trying to scurry to cover the fraud, cover their tracks, cover their own political reputations.

    These are men who WERE and ARE telling CHILDREN that the LAWS of PHYSICS are WRONG: and that there has been discovered on Venus, a magical gassiness that makes it MUCH hotter than the law of physics written to determine that gas volume’s temperature, says it should be.

    Utter, complete, bullshit. Again: AGAIN: See Tony Heller’s two threads, Hyperventilating on Venus, and Venus Envy,

    then go watch Harry Huffman discuss this exact same thing: HOW the FAKERY about VENUS’ temperature, is DONE.

    ((Peace Love & Soul, scientists, students, mathematicians, physicists, etc))

  136. Well, I guess I could be called a “gravity denier” too, BUT for a different reason. You see, I think that the word, “gravity” is just a manner of categorizing our perceptions — I do not think that gravity is a real “force”. Heck, I don’t know if I really believe in “forces” either.

    I think it’s all fluid motion and pressure-like phenomenon all the way down, so to speak. But, that being said, I think “gravity” is a good practical way to talk about stuff, and I still doubt the “gravity” denying of alarmists. Rather, they are more gravity-avoiding, when it comes to explaining climate issues.

    How do you know a die-hard alarmist believes in gravity? ANSWER: the weight of his/her ego — without that, they could not stay grounded.

  137. Sunsettommy says:

    The Sun is also adding to the surface compression with its solar wind.

  138. Sunset…,

    I think maybe solar wind might be getting into a different category of “pressure” — photon pressure ? … as opposed to gas pressure ? — I’m not sure. That’s probably why “gravity” is a good way to keep the different categories and subcategories of our perceptions better separated.

  139. Allen Eltor says:

    Sorry for the typo above, but i said in a convection driven storm cell, the water evaporates, rises, lends energy to nearby cold nitrogen and oxygen, and condenses, to WATER.

    That’s incorrect and it doesn’t hurt to straighten it out. The water thus cooled, condenses to ICE.

    As far as the speed of one falling, vs the other, there might not be much diff, but it’s definitely a typo.

    Water that evaps from the surface and it’s associated features, turns to vapor obviously, rises and cools, and as it cools thus condensing to ice, it falls to the ground a lot faster than if it remained a single phase vapor – AND, this falling ice, falling downward again through the cell, the storm, is turned back to vapor repeatedly: vapor rising, ice falling, sublimating back to vapor. This goes on again and again, during any given storm cell’s lifespan, and this rise/fall/rise/fall/rise/fall continues through many, many cycles.

    So.. that typo where I typed that it turns to water, and falls back down, is just wrong. I mean… lol obviously it’s still water in some sense but written that way it immediately lends to the mind that we’re talking liquid, and that’s not really the scoop.

    As many badly – nay horribly edited posts as I put up, I should be forced to get like a leopard spot tattoo, for every typo and grammatical answer, and when I’m all covered up just be made to join the circus, and sit on a stool as an exhibit as the ”incredible leopard man.

    Remember kids, when some government employee tells you magic made a cold nitrogen bath a magical heater,

    these are the same people who jailed, shot, murdered, beat, broke, ruined, maligned and destroyed the lives of – *COUNT EM*
    of American

    then -doubling down on pure f***g evil,
    attacked identically, millions,

    of perfectly honest, normal citizens, because – and I quote from the magical literature,

    ”At ‘tair pot’s like heroin, son, that’s why heroinajuana and marajuana sound the same, they are almost the same stuff.

    It’s worse fur yew than uh.. methyl amphetamine habit! That’ sh**t’s the devil’s lettuce, uh…GAIT WAYE to HEROIN! YaW!”

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