Willis & Anthony & Roy = Flat Earth Theorists

Someone sent me this:

Have You Seen This

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/

So, I decided to write them a letter:

From: Joseph Postma
Sent: December 31, 2018 11:26 AM
To: Willis Eschenbach <weschenbach@gmail.com>; WUWT (Anthony Watts) <wattsup@sbcglobal.net>; Roy <roy@drroyspencer.com>
Subject: Radiative Greenhouse Effect Mathematically Disproven

Hi Willis,

You might like to know that I debunked your silly little “steel greenhouse” idea in my new book:

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B07L2KWJB7

I mean you quite openly, and happily and admittedly, violate conservation of energy with your totally unworkable solution to the problem…but hey, what are shills to do, am I right guys?

The steel greenhouse when properly solved does, however, present a very nice mathematical disproof of itself.  Not that you would care about a mathematical disproof, but I do enjoy just rubbing your face in it.

By the way Anthony, I am thoroughly impressed by your 60+ IQ reasoning in one of your latest articles defending climate alarm and its greenhouse effect, with your “It’s just wrong” of Nikolov and Zeller.  Wow you’re so smart!  Tell me, what’s it like being a shill defending the basis of climate alarmism, and hence, climate alarmism, while pretending to be a skeptic?  Were you born a piece of shit, or did you just like the way that shit sticks to you?

You people are crank, crackpot, pseudoscientific, flat Earth theorists.  You believe in flat Earth theory.  And did I mention that you’re shills, working to defend the basis of climate alarmism, and hence, defending climate alarmism?  Wow it’s soooo not obvious guys!

Willis & Anthony & Roy = Flat Earth theorists.

So fuck you, you disgusting pieces of shill shit.

Happy Holidays,

Joe Postma

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in In the Cold Light of Day and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Willis & Anthony & Roy = Flat Earth Theorists

  1. geran says:

    Joseph, you should not have gone so easy on them….

  2. geran says:

    Actually, of the three, Willis seems to be the most rational. Although he does not understand the physics, he is more williing to accept correction, i.e., be in search of truth.
    Watts and Spencer use censorship to further their pseudoscience.

  3. These people are the biggest intellectual cowards possible. And they’re actually unconscious…hence why they can’t and don’t actually think.

  4. tomhwp1013 says:

    Geran, all three would answer “no”. But that’s a metaphor completely unrelated to the atmosphere.

  5. tomhwp1013 says:

    Joe: Would you expect to engage anyone in reasoned debate with that sort of message? I know you are frustrated that they are not in agreement with you, but isn’t it worth continuing the effort with challenges that might provoke such a reasonable debate.

  6. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Would you expect to engage anyone in reasoned debate with that sort of message? I know you are frustrated that they are not in agreement with you, but isn’t it worth continuing the effort with challenges that might provoke such a reasonable debate.”

    Oh…I’ve been at things with these people for many, many years. It indeed did start out as a kind invitation to discuss things, have a rational debate, asking whether or not the Earth is flat and whether or not flat Earth is useful in physics, etc.

    What you see from me now is how they originally responded to me. And I took the high road for years, and allowed them to ad-hom me, to falsify and misrepresent what I say, to step aside and miss the point, to change goal posts, etc., for a long, long time.

    It then became clear that these people, such people, are shills. You cannot be that stupid accidentally. You cannot accidentally refuse to engage on whether or not flat Earth theory physics is valid. It takes intent and purpose to miss the point for as long as they have.

    And so they are shills. They are 100% proof positive shills. Everyone should email them, and tell them all right where to go in as colorful of language as you can create.

    These people are purposefully and clandestinely instilling flat Earth theory into our politics, our science, our children’s minds, etc. They are destroying the human mind…they are destroying human civilization.

    Changes in the weather aren’t and couldn’t destroy global humanity…but mental viruses with embedded cognitive dissonance which destroys IQ and the level of consciousness, certainly can.

    The only thing worse than being what they are and what they are doing – crank crackpot flat Earther’s purposefully destroying human civilization – is if they were outright pedophiles.

    Don’t you get yet that they’re doing this on purpose? That these “skeptics” who refuse to entertain the SIMPLEST and most obvious levels of critical thought about the alarmist greenhouse effect are in fact protecting the alarmist greenhouse effect? That’s what they’re trying to save…they’re trying to goal-post and corral the argument, to make it look like skeptics believe in this new conception of their alarmist greenhouse effect.

    They’re NOT innocent, and they aren’t interested in kind or rational debate. Do you get where this is leading!?

  7. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s what they do…that’s what the whole shtick is about! They conflate a real greenhouse effect in a real greenhouse with this simulacrum, this fakery of their climate alarmist radiative greenhouse effect which should also function in a real greenhouse if their theory was true, but doesn’t. Then they conflate and confuse everything else, such as insulation, etc. Insulation is actually itself a 100% mathematical disproof of their alarmist greenhouse effect since insulation is about making heat flow equal to zero, whereas their alarmist greenhouse effect is about amplifying conserving heat flow at a non-zero value!

    What this is about, I cover in my book in the discussion of the negative Hegelian Dialectic…how engineered cognitive dissonance can be used to REDUCE consciousness, and to reduce the ability of a mind to reason, etc. How it can be used to reduce IQ. That’s the true underlying nature of the game being played here…is destroying the human mind and thus human civilization. Infantalizing and emotionalizing the mind rather than rationalizing it, like we see with the liberal left.

    Humanity could survive a K-T Boundary event. It wouldn’t be easy, but we could survive it.

    What we wouldn’t survive is our minds being reduced to lower and lower IQ, our minds being seized to critical thought by cognitive dissonance and simulacra, etc. It is our mind and rational thought that defines humanity, the sole thing that distinguishes us from the animals. And it is our mind that is being attacked, with this constant conflation and confusion of terms and concepts, etc.

    If there was ever such a thing as a clandestine “alien” attack on humanity that was willing to wait patiently for humanity to kill itself off with engineered stupidity via mental viruses etc., this is what it would look like.

    Or, that’s just how bad academia and the global powers that be have themselves become.

  8. Spectral absorption and scattering is not the or a greenhouse effect. That’s what he means by transient absence of cooling…but it is really called spectral absorption and scattering, and these don’t cause a source to warm further nor have they stopped the source surface from emitting. A cool gas can be heated by a warmer source, but this is not the or a greenhouse effect, and it doesn’t cause the source surface to warm or to stop emitting from itself.

  9. I actually think Willis has some good articles over there, but, on this radiative greenhouse obsession, I think he is lost in a fog of very sophisticated rationalizations and confusions.

    And I really don’t get why Anthony is so cemented in his attitude. How can intelligence be so inflexible to the point of creating an obstructive block of concrete ?

    Spencer, well, he seems professionally vested in his delusions, because they support his career, as he has always constructed it. He might actually have to learn to think differently and adjust his style, if he ntertained anything other than magic-gas theory. Can’t have that — it would be too uncomfortable.

  10. geran says:

    The appropriate question to all three is “Can you raise the temperature of an object above room temperature with only ice cubes?”

    Anthony Watts?

    Willis Eschenbach?

    Roy Spencer?

    The correct answer must be only one word, “yes” or “no”.

  11. geran says:

    tom, how did your comment get above mine?

    Nevertheless, the three would have to answer “yes”. They all believe in the GHE. Willis is the one that produced the infamous “steel greenhouse”. Watts had the lightbulbs and mirrors “trick”. Spencer has posted numerous articles on his blog in support of the bogus GHE.

    Their pseudoscience is well documented.

    Joseph is likely frustrated because people like you have not being paying attention.

  12. Stephen Wells says:

    I found Roy Spencer on a Facebook skeptics page a few days ago. I ran him off within a few comments. He was trying to conflate insulation with the greenhouse effect as usual. He didn’t last long. When you can’t block people’s comments you have to run away

  13. I find the following comment totally sophist:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2572972

    I have written up a response, but I have not posted it, because I’m not confident that I have addressed the technicalities competently.

    My impression is that Rud uses lots of words for fewer words, in order to give an impression that more of his words means something different than the fewer words describing exactly the same thing.

    He replaces the word, “warming”, with an eight-word phrase that he thinks means something different, but it means the same thing.

  14. geran says:

    “The GHE is a transient absence of eqivalent [sic] offsetting IR cooling to space.”

    Wow, that’s quite a mouthful, Robert! I never go to WUWT anymore, so thanks for linking to Rud’s comment.

    Another great example of sophistry.

  15. geran,

    I did NOT post the following at WUWT, but this is my attempt to work through Rud’s commentary that I linked to above:

    [“Disappointing that after so many years here at WUWT, something as simple and basic as radiative GHE is not well understood or accepted by all, and that ‘embarassing’ alternative theories still abound to be espoused here.”]

    What is disappointing is that something as simply and basically flawed as GHE is not well understood by all. What is embarassing is that minds can be so cemented against seeing its flaws.

    [“The GHE is NOT warming; all warming comes from inbound solar radiation (lets skip the de minimus volcanic argument powered by radioactive decay in Earths core). The GHE is a transient absence of eqivalent offsetting IR cooling to space.”]

    “… transient absence of equivalent offset IR cooling to space”, … is not warming, he says.

    By replacing one word with nine words that describe the one word, Rud seems to think he proves that the meaning of that one word is not the same as the nine words, when, in fact, he has merely substituted nine words to describe precisely what that one word means. Why not just use the phrase, “slowed cooling” — the standard two-word replacement for warming that means “not warming”? Rud chooses to use nine words to mean warming that is not warming. Those nine words convince me no more than the standard two.

    [“Convection and conduction can move solar generated heat around, but by definition cannot shed it back to space.”]

    Agreed. But the question is, “What is the mechanism by which Earth’s atmosphere captures this solar generated heat?” How do the molecules of the air actually increase their energies? GHE says not by direct sunlight-to-air contact, but by sunlight-to-ground contact that 0.04% + of the molecules control for the 2% of H2O molecules that control the other 98% of the molecules.

    Does N2 and O2 really just “sit there”, “waiting” for that portion of CO2 + to do all the cooling to space? GHE says yes, right? The radiation of the entire mass of Earth depends entirely on 0.04+% of its atmospheric mass by volume? I find this hard to accept, no matter how many times I read the technical arguments.

    [“The most that convection can do is transport some heat above the effective radiating level (ERL) where the GHG IR scattering ‘fog’ clears sufficiently for IR to reach space. (Think towering thunderstorms).”]

    ERL (“Effective Radiating Level”) is an imaginary location that has no physically real relationship to convection, and so Rud should not speak of convection’s occuring above a location that does not physically exist. He confuses a convenience of description with an actual physical process, trying to relate something imaginary to something real. Convection is occurring in some of the same places where radiation is occurring. Artificially separating convection and radiation, the way Rud describes, is unreal. It still becons for the greenhouse roof that does not exist. It, therefore, does little to explain the reality.

    [“We know that ERL ‘height’ from the temperature/altitude lapse rate measured by radiosondes, and the ‘temperature’ of the escaping IR frequency as measured by satellites.”]

    The fact that radiosonde and satellite measurements enable us to deduce a value for an ERL does not make the ERL any more of a realistic location of a physical concentration or layer of anything that convection can go above or below.

    ERL seems to be being thought of, again, as the greenhouse roof that does not physically exist. An imaginary convenience is being pictured as a physical entity.

    [“That transient absence of radiative cooling is caused by GHG, the existence of which was experimentally shown in 1859 by John Tyndall. Transient, because in the presence of any added amount of GHG, temperature will rise until sufficient additional offsetting IR materializes.”]

    What I see is Rud substituting his own creative choice of words to describe something that plain words show to be exactly what he thinks his enhanced words are not saying. Again, he is talking about warming in terms that he has convinced himself that he is not.

    [“Dr Spencers backradiation sensor does not show that backradiation ‘warms’. It evidences the IR scattering by GHG that proves the loss of IR cooling that comprises the GHE. Hence his comment about not violating the second thermo law.”]

    “Loss of IR cooling” simply means “slowed cooling”, which means “warming”. The sensor shows a reading against the instrument’s calibrated baseline for measuring what its target is radiating. It’s a relative reading — it’s not an absolute reading — it’s not a reading of anything more either adding to or subtracting from the environment in which the instrument is located, I think.

    Slowed cooling of a warmer entity by a cooler entity is no less a violation than increased warming of a warmer entity by a cooler entity.

    When I am tired, I am not sleepy, but “less awake”.

    When I need food, I am not hungry but “less fed”.

    When I inhale, I am not breathing but “exhaling less”.

    When I sweat, I am not warm, but “less cool”.

    All these sentences are constructed, in order to give the impression that two different things are being talked about, when, in fact, the same thing is being talked about twice, using different words. A synonomous wording is being put forth as a different concept. This is sophistry.

  16. Rosco says:

    This site ives some “facts” about atmospheric temperatures of the outer planets – https://www.universetoday.com/35664/temperature-of-the-planets/

    It quotes:-

    “Jupiter:
    Since Jupiter is a gas giant, it has no solid surface, so it has no surface temperature. But measurements taken from the top of Jupiter’s clouds indicate a temperature of approximately -145°C. Closer to the center, the planet’s temperature increases due to atmospheric pressure.

    At the point where atmospheric pressure is ten times what it is on Earth, the temperature reaches 21°C, what we Earthlings consider a comfortable “room temperature”. At the core of the planet, the temperature is much higher, reaching as much as 35,700°C – hotter than even the surface of the Sun.”

    NASA state the solar radiation at Jupiter is ~50.26 W/m2. This equates to a blackbody temperature of ~172 K. They quote the blackbody temperature calculated by the divide by four nonsense as 109.9 K.

    Jupiter has approximately so close to zero concentration of GHG’s as to be irrelevant.

    None of the planets with an atmosphere except Earth and Mars can be considered to have a “greenhouse effect” anyway as their atmospheres are so dense and reflective that visible light doesn’t reach the “surface” at all.

    If the information about “core” temperatures of the “gas giants” is right and if Watts et al are right then how does anyone explain Jupiter’s internal temperature of >20,000 or 30,000°C ?

    Some stupidly say it is the remnant “heat of formation” but if compressing a gas can’t retain that “heat of formation” where did it come from ?

    They all hypocritically say it is due to compressing a gas ???

    And just how is it possible that a self compressing ball of gas can acrete from the rotating mass of gases surrounding the sun in the early solar system at all ? We all know gases occupy all freely available space and a self compressing ball of gas has never been observed.

    Each planet must have some form of high density core to hold and accumulate their gaseous atmospheres.

    All that aside the temperatures quoted for deep in the gas giant’s atmospheres prove beyond doubt that a gravitationally comprsessed atmosphere sustains a temperature – none of them can possibly have a “greenhouse effect” and the Sun can only explain temperatures a hundred degrees or more below the freezing point of water.

  17. Rosco says:

    “The GHE is NOT warming; all warming comes from inbound solar radiation (lets skip the de minimus volcanic argument powered by radioactive decay in Earths core). The GHE is a transient absence of eqivalent offsetting IR cooling to space.”

    I always find this argument that Earth is radiating LESS to space as CO2 increases in the atmosphere funny.

    EVERY satellite data set shows Earth is radiating MORE to space over the last 3 decades NOT LESS – EVERY ONE of them.

    AND their simplistic disk absorption versus spherical radiation shows Earth only “needs” to shed ~239.& W/m2 to space anyway yet they obsess over this ?

    This is just one NASA page showing a positive anomaly for radiation to space for almost the entire period from 1979 – https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Nimbus/nimbus2.php

    Yet they just keep on denying this obvious contrary fact.

  18. It is yet another paradox, violating the Stefan-Boltzman Law – that a warmer object must supposedly emit less!

  19. A no-atmosphere planet has a temperature. Spontaneously, add an atmosphere, and the greenhousians say that the planet, then, has a higher temperature than it would otherwise have without that atmosphere. Why? — because the atmosphere “slows cooling”.

    If the temperature is higher, then the slowing-cooling atmosphere added heat to it that was not otherwise there. Thus, “slowing cooling” = “adding heat”. “Slowing cooling” is adding heat by taking some heat that is already there and adding it back to itself. This is supposed to make more sense than an atmospheric-compression explanation.

    Willis’ proof against atmospheric compression is to use IR transparency as a premise for ignoring the atmosphere entirely, making it invisible to any other form of reasoning except IR reasoning. How effective — ignoring every detail of the compression explanation by sticking to an IR explanation that makes any consideration of atmospheric mass invisible — out of sight, out of mind.
    This is no more than a round-about way of inducing intellectual blindness.

  20. Mark Shooter says:

    Joe, love you stuff.
    Don’t know if you follow Scott Adams (Dilbert Fame) but he has quite a following since he started blogging about Trump during the elections. Scott has been a student of persuasion for most of his adult life. He uses twitter and periscope. Scott will discuss Climate Change sometimes but he doesn’t have access to any real experts (yet), references lukewarmers. He has commented that he doesn’t know anything about science but the Climate Change side acts like con men.

    Scott is very clever and subtle about the way he talks about it (persuasion).

    His periscope site is “https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays”, he is asking for links on his twitter feed. Joe, you could help.

  21. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Mr. Eschenbach makes several fundamental errors, the nature of which were so elementary that our initial reaction was to not respond.”

    Willis is not qualified to discuss any of this stuff, and for anyone to reference Willis (as Anthony and Roy do) also demonstrates that they are not qualified to discuss this either. I am open to letting lay-people get in on this, but a minimum standard must be met. Willis & co. fall below that standard. When Willis & co. say that conservation of energy can be violated and dismissed because of “rounding errors”, because you can round-off the error to make it go away(!!!!!), you are dealing with below standard morons.

  22. Yet Willis words capture an eager audience.

    “Citizen scientist” or master sophist ? That is the question.

    Nikolov can easily assert that Willis’ errors are fundamental, but, really, they seem quite sophisticated, to the point that people not well versed in this sort of analysis cannot see the errors.
    As I told Willis, “The grander one’s knowledge, the grander one’s errors”, and that I was not convinced that he was not making such errors.

    He, of course, stands by his words, and insists that things are as he says. The sheer meticulousness of Nikolov’s biting critique, however, convinces me that things are NOT as Willis says, and I tend to believe Nikolov above Willis, because the level of detail in Nikilov’s critique answers every single objection that Willis had, who seems hell bent on taking Nikolov and Zeller down.
    It’s amazing how the errors of his steel greenhouse can still stand in his own eyes as correct assessments. Human minds are truly fragmented, when it comes to preferences.

  23. Another useful link to help weigh Willis’ criticism of Nikolov & Zeller:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/ausie-dan-encircling-the-dragon-2/

    Reminds me of when I once played a nationally ranked handball player, when I was just getting started playing the game — I managed to score two points against him in three games of 21.
    … a good workout, but, clearly, he had greater mastery of the game than me.

  24. xumbar says:

    I started reading your book “In the Cold Light of Day”. In the “Shell Greenhouse” chapter, you identify a paradox where the temperature of the shell is calculated to increase as the shell radius approaches the sphere radius. It’s been a very long time since I did any pure science, but wouldn’t you have to do work to move a shell of infinite radius against the pressure of the radiation from the sphere and thereby increase the temperature of the shell. After all, if you spontaneously create a shell at the sphere radius, the paradox vanishes.

  25. Well it doesn’t have to be the same shell…a single shell going from infinite radius to finite radius, which is a contradiction in terms anyway. It is just what happens when you bring in any shell of a given radius.

    At low temperature radiation pressure is negligible. It is not about changing the radius of the shell…it is about bringing in a shell of a given radius, and what the result is given the mathematics…which then gives the paradox.

    This section is more just a demonstration of ontological mathematics…how if the correct mathematics which corresponds with reality is not used, then it necessarily contains paradox.

    Later on you will read a much simpler analysis – their alarming greenhouse effect is simply flat Earth theory, and that’s why their math doesn’t work out when it is applied to otherwise-reasonable scenarios.

  26. xumbar says:

    You say “…not about changing the radius…[but] about bringing in…”. What’s the difference? It’s this changing or bringing in that requires energy, which is omitted from the analysis, that explains the paradox.

    I’ll keep on reading.

  27. Joseph E Postma says:

    That doesn’t actually explain the paradox because the math of the heat flow does not depend on how the shell got there. Those are separate things.

    And in any case, setting up the scenario is how all physics texts begin any sort of problem or free-body-diagram, etc. This is how it is done. You set up the scenario and then you say “what if such and such occurs or changes”, etc.

    So you say: what happens if the scenario is that the shell is this radius. Then, what happens if the scenario is that the shell is this other radius. Etc. This is how all physics textbooks and all physics is derived from first principles analysis.

  28. xumbar says:

    I don’t want to belabour this point, but doing work matters: change in internal energy = heat + work, as you point out several times.

    After deriving equation 7, you start by setting R-shell=infinity and you get a result. Then you set R-shell=R-sphere and get a paradox. But how did the shell get from infinity to R-sphere. If you spontaneously create a shell at R-sphere, you don’t need equation 7. I’m only trying to point out that the paradox can be resolved by considering the work done.

  29. xumbar says:

    Finished the “Complete Thermodynamics” chapter.

    I can see how the greenhouse effect can be debunked using the sphere-in-shell model with the energy source internal to the sphere. However, in reality, the energy source is external to the shell-sphere system. The source has to be in equilibrium with the shell not the sphere.

    Given that R-shell is approximately equal to R-sphere on the scale of the earth, a flat-earth analysis is looking pretty good, at least as a very crude first approximation. Of course I’ll keep reading.

    By the way, I’m not a climate-change alarmist. I have no problem with increasing CO2 levels.

  30. @xumbar the work done by “changing the radius” doesn’t change the heat flow equation between the sphere and shell, which is where the paradox occurs. The paradox is independent of how the shell got there.

  31. xumbar says:

    My apologies for repeating the “changing the radius” theme. After rereading the two chapters involved, I finally see the point you were trying to make. In one, the flux from the shell is added to the flux from the sphere, which is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics and therefore needs no resolution. In the other, the fluxes are (correctly) subtracted. I didn’t realize you were trying to make that contrast. The long intervening rant dissociated the two cases in my mind.

  32. xumbar says:

    Referring to your paper that you reproduced in your book and the first diagram that depicts the radiative greenhouse effect: If that diagram modelled an experimental apparatus in a vacuum instead of the earth, I wonder if the thermodynamic analysis included with the diagram is correct, in particular the energy balance equation.

    At first, I struggled to understand how the solar radiation could be added to the “backradiation” from the atmosphere layer. Then I realized the two fluxes represent two non-overlapping wavelength ranges, so the fluxes can be added. Consequently, the extra heat necessary to raise the surface temperature comes not from the atmosphere but from the sun.

    If this is correct, it confirms the radiative greenhouse effect. However, given the complexity and variability of the actual earth/atmosphere system, we can’t automatically assume that it has an impact on climate. As you note, there is research that sites gravity as the dominant force.

  33. I address just this later in the book. An apparatus which actually physically looked like the diagram still has to obey heat flow, and so heat still can’t flow backwards, etc.

  34. Also: fluxes from different sources never add. They only subtract, in which case the result is heat.

    *Cold doesn’t add into hot.*

  35. xumbar says:

    I skipped over a few chapters to get to the relevant section.

    I went to other sources to discover what happens when radiation from two adjacent bodies interacts, and how this relates to heat flow. With that new knowledge, I believe your analysis makes perfect sense. I’m convinced there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s